i knew you were a douche bag, but damn....

do i have any more homework, teacher fool? where the hell do you come up with all your nonsense?

asking you to substantiate an argument is not asking you to tell me how to think.

i believed in all of that nonsense in middle school. i guess some of us learn faster than others...

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

WELL THEN, LET'S DISCUSS IT IN THE RIGHT THREAD AND WE CAN COMPARE EVIDENCE.

Is the US Government Controlled?

Unless you are afraid.

No, that's what YOU mean by it, in a self-serving fashion that allows you to exempt forms of coercion you do not want to recognize.

The definition of a word is always DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. Words have meanings arising from their use in conversation, interacting with the real-world things they mean to apply the words to. A definition does not establish authoritatively the meaning of a word, it merely seeks to describe accurately the meaning the word already has.

Freedom, in conversation, means things like this:

The government can't put me in jail for speaking my mind. I can quit this job any time I want. I'm not stuck in this relationship, I can leave. I'm out in society, and not in prison.

These things are what freedom means, these and other specific things that we use the word for. A definition attempts to reduce all these uses of the word to a neat and tidy description. As such, it is always an approximation of the meaning at best (except in pure mathematics, where terms have no real-world significance and the definition IS the meaning).

Because of this, outside pure mathematics, all arguments from definition are inherently fallacious and invalid. For that reason, I'm snipping everything you presented that depends on arguments from definition; they are automatically and inherently fallacious and invalid and require no response.

Freedom is dependent on psychological coercion, PERIOD. Physical coercion is only effective to the extent that it has a psychological effect. As noted already, if a slave chooses to accept a whipping rather than obey, the whipping alone cannot force him to change his mind; only his fear of the pain can do that.

If the person believes the threat to be real, and it suffices to compel obedience, that's true. In fact, that's how all punishment works. If you obey a law you disagree with because you fear you will get caught, then the government has threatened you and your freedom has been restrained by that threat and your fear of that threat.

As noted above, words do not mean what their definitions say. They mean what they are used to mean in conversation, and definitions attempt to describe that meaning concisely. A definition that allows you to call a doctor a slave on that basis clearly has failed to describe the meaning accurately and needs to be reworked.

Once again, all arguments from definition, outside pure mathematics, are inherently fallacious and invalid.

Yes, or to disprove it. That's an important part of scientific method: you see something, you come up with a hypothesis explaining it, and you look for evidence for or against that hypothesis. If the evidence shows your hypothesis is correct, then you advance it (tentatively) and allow others to try to disprove it (or prove it). If not, then you rework it and try again.

To say that observation and experience are the best ways to understand objective, independent reality would be a first principle. To say that they are the best ways to understand the world we observe and experience is a self-evident tautology. That world we observe and experience may or may not be the "objectively real" world, but it most certainly is the world we observe and experience. That's all I want to deal with.

It was based on an argument from your own definition of freedom, rather than from a reference to the reality people experience and use that word for in conversation. As such, it had nothing to do with reality, and I can't be bothered with it. It's not a game I care to play.

Good grief, Marcus, you're becoming incoherent. I have this clear vision of you foaming at the mouth. Calm down, man!

If they AREN'T too stupid to realize something, then they DO realize it, right? Seriously, get a grip.

We do distinguish between that sort of accidental consequence and one imposed by law or other forms of deliberate force. There's a difference between obeying the traffic signals because they make sense and are there to protect your safety, and obeying them when you can see the intersection is empty because you can also see the traffic cop standing on the other corner looking at you suspiciously.

But as I said, that's ALWAYS true. If the concept of freedom is to have any meaning at all, it can't be something that's always true; it must be possible NOT to be free as well as to be free. I'm repeating myself here, sorry about that but you never answered the point. Was a slave on an antebellum plantation free?

Why not? Couldn't the slave disobey, as long as he was willing to accept the consequences, which might include torture and death? Of course he could! So by your reasoning, a slave is free . . .

We are not free in any way that the system, or an individual, or the government, or whatever, threatens us with unacceptable consequences for doing what we want to do. If that's not the case, then it's meaningless to say things like "this is a free country," because all countries are free. You could go out and protest against the government in Nazi Germany. If you did, the Gestapo would snap you up and stick you in a concentration camp (or just shoot you), but hey, if you were willing to accept that, then nothing could stop you from making your protest. So obviously Nazi Germany was a free country, right?

I guess it's also possible to physically restrain (not coerce) someone so as to make it literally impossible for them to take certain actions. But that's not usually what we mean by saying someone is "not free," and that is not coercion. Certainly it doesn't apply to slaves on the plantations, who were usually not shackled or otherwise physically restrained form running away, but were instead threatened with punishment if they did. That threat of punishment is coercion and the reason why we say that the slaves weren't free.

I think what really is getting to you, so that you resort to arguments like this, which you're normally smart enough to see are nonsense, is the suggestion that too great a disparity of wealth amounts to lack of freedom. I'm not saying anything short of absolute equality amounts to lack of freedom. Again, as noted in the OP, in a commercial transaction the key question is whether both parties can walk away from the deal without unacceptable consequences. If only one of them can, but the other cannot, then the one who can't is not free. To break it down to a job market situation, the key question is not whether the employer is richer than the prospective employee, but whether the employee is well-off enough to turn down the job without hesitation. That will be the case as long as inequality does not exceed a certain maximum; there's no need that I can see to reduce it literally to zero (even if that were possible, which it's not).

Still, from your posting history, I'd say any suggestion that too much inequality is a bad thing is not going to be welcome on your ears.

And which of these is devoid of action - of physicality?
Yes, as I imagine you must. After all, we can't work from any definite meaning of any concept. How else would you obfuscate your meaning and avoid any argument?
No, it's not. Physical coercion works very well, unless you're arguing a shackled person in a prison cell is still free as long as no one threatens him. Are you?
If the person believes the threat to be real, but still doesn't comply, is he not free?
Physical coercion - if I get caught, something will be done to me. Regardless of my psychological state, I am still free to choose whether to obey that law. If the government is just going to threaten me - i.e. psychological coercion - but not bring any physical coercion to bear, what are the odds of me obeying that law? The existence of the physical coercion is the difference which impedes my freedom.
A beautifully succinct statement of your position in every argument. The only thing I would add would be, "Words only mean what TSGracchus says they mean."

Tell me, what is the difference between how I'm using the term - how the term has been defined, and how it's used in conversation? Would a prisoner say, "I'm free because no one threatens me?" Does a man threatened with his safety first think of his freedom?
Would a man forced to work for the benefit of another consider himself free?
Ahhh, more TSG redefinition. Speaking simply from the scientific method, is an hypothesis the same as a conclusion?
Ahh, so there are first principles? So, what was your argument again? Oh yes, here it is:
So, there must be some other reason for my annoyance. I would postulate that it's your reluctance, or inability, to actually use valid reasoning from these first principles.
Then stop playing it. You are free to stop at any time. I could even threaten you to keep going and you would still have the freedom to stop. I could call you names, insult you, and do any number of psychologically damaging things - but you would still be free to leave the discussion.

"Freedom" is "the absence of physical coercion." Your inability to prove it is something else is manifest in your unwillingness to address any arguments to the contrary.

Your argument for all matters follows the same formula: There are no absolutes - except the absolutes I claim (including the one I just wrote). Words mean what I say they mean, until I want them to mean something else. All arguments are invalid if they are arguments against my position.

None. Did we ever disagree about that, that acting on freedom always involves some sort of action? Isn't that a tautological obvious?

Definite meanings are fine, but let's not divorce the words from the reality they're meant to describe. Our precision should be about the latter. When a definition leads us to a place utterly bizarre and out of touch with the way a word is used in conversation, there's something wrong with it, and in any case, arguments from the definition can say anything at all -- at most -- only about the word itself. The reality it describes remains what it is, unchanged regardless of how we use language.

That's not what I mean by "coercion," nor is it the main kind of restraint on freedom experienced in the world. Very, very few people are shackled most of the time.

There's a difference between coercion and restraint. If a burglar is trying to break into a house, the lock on the door is restraint, the occupant leaning out an upstairs window, firing a warning shot, and saying "get the hell off my property, jackass!" is coercion.

If you want to say that freedom can only be infringed by physical restraints, then you are saying that the overwhelming majority of people are absolutely free almost all the time, and there are no threats to liberty whatsoever, except perhaps hospital restraints. Somehow I doubt that's your position on the subject.

If the threat isn't effective, then his freedom is unrestrained by it. An important point. See below.

Fine so far, except that the consequence doesn't HAVE to be physical, as in the example I gave earlier of the guy whose wife threatened to leave him if he didn't do X. That's an emotional consequence, not a physical one, but regardless of the nature of the threat, what makes the difference (as you observed above) is whether the threat is effective to make a person behave. And that depends on how much the person cares about those consequences, not about their objective nature, nor about whether they are physical or emotional.

This is merely saying that the threat must be credible. Obviously that's true. If the government (or who or whatever) threatens but does not follow through on the threat, then it quickly ceases to be credible, and will not shape behavior.

I note you say "regardless of my psychological state," but that isn't true. If your psychological state is that you are unconcerned by the threat, then yes, you're free to disobey the command. But if your psychological state is that the threat terrifies the bejeezus out of you and you simply can't face it, then no, you're not free to disobey.

Tell you what, why don't you find one of those doctors you're talking about and ask him. Don't explain your theory first, just ask him, "Do you consider yourself a free man or a slave?" and see what he says.

Yes, because in the sense of finality there are no conclusions, but a hypothesis is often presented in the form of a conclusion if the evidence has been found to justify it.

I didn't say that, of course. I said that IF I made a certain claim -- which I'm NOT making -- that WOULD be a first principle. What I am saying is NOT a first principle, it's a tautology.

In the sense that one can make an assumption and reason from it, of course there are first principles, it's just that none of them is anything more than that, an assumption. And your reasoning is only as good as your premises. By reasoning from experiential evidence and observation instead, you're no closer to "absolute truth" than if you make up something and go from there, but you are dealing with reality as we experience it, and that seems to me to be justification enough.

I'd have to start playing it before I could stop.

Any time you want to stop fooling around with arguments from definition and word games and deal with the real world, go ahead, Cato. It would be refreshing and I would treat your arguments with more respect because they would deserve more.

So, there are no "absolute truths", except in mathematics?

There are no absolute truths when we are dealing with the world of experience (except maybe that one). Mathematics doesn't say anything about the world of experience. It's a self-contained universe constructed purely in the mind. That's why, in mathematics, there can be such things as postulates, which are statements offered without proof, and which are the basis for proving any other statements. These postulates or axioms are absolutely true within the context of the mathematical system, but have no meaning outside it. It's also possible to have two different mathematical systems with different postulates, where statements that are true in the context of one system are false in the context of the other.

Moral systems are somewhat analogous to math in that they are based on ultimate core values (sometimes articulated, usually not) that inform all reasoning by providing a basic context of good and evil so that the result of any action can be judged. Reasoning applies in observing that if I do A, then B will result, and B is a [good/evil] result, therefore I [should/should not] do A. But this reasoning, while it can logically justify the doing/not doing of A in terms of B, cannot logically justify the good or evil nature of B itself. However, moral systems are only partly like math, in that they also deal with the real world of experience, which math does not.

When you are dealing with the world of experience, the basis for reasoning is not first principles, postulates, or axioms as in mathematics, it's our observation of the reality we live in. As such, anything we say must always be tentative, because observation does not convey absolute certainty. There will always be data that we do not have, and so the possibility will always exist that new data will change our understanding.

Rationalists (that is, philosophers who believe that pure reason can determine absolute truth) want to take what amounts to a mathematics-like system of reasoning from first principles and apply that to the real world. The problem is that such an approach never works perfectly and sometimes doesn't work at all.

Then we're back to my original questions: What type of coercion would be psychological, yet not physical? More to the point, what type of coercion would the government bring to bear which is psychological and not physical?
Then address my argument. Simply because it is an argument from definition doesn't make it automatically fallacious. Unless you want to "backtrack" on what you've just written here?

How have I divorced the meaning of "freedom" from the reality it's meant to describe? Would a prisoner say, "I'm free because no one threatens me?" Does a man threatened with his safety first think of his freedom?
Remember your argument, TS. You've posited that all coercion is psychological, "PERIOD."

All coercion is physical - PERIOD. There's no better evidence of this than your inability to provide an example of coercion which doesn't necessitate some physical element.
Ahhh, I see. So, if there is no reality of any physicality being brought to bear, then there is no coercion?
How is this an example of a non-physical threat? Are you arguing whatever emotions the man feels he does not actually feel with his body? Are you arguing the wife can leave without action?
Really? So, it's impossible for someone to be utterly terrified of a threat, yet act contrary to avoiding that threat? How do you explain people like Gandhi, or soldiers?
Already done. Here's how the conversation usually goes:
Cato: Imagine the government threatened you with jail if you didn't provide health care to whomever wanted it. Would you be free?

At this point they look at me like I'm some sort of moron.

Doc: Of course not. What's your definition of freedom, being free to let others force you to act?

Now, how 'bout you just answer the question: Would a man forced to work for the benefit of another consider himself free? I'll make it even simpler: If you were forced to work for the sole benefit of another, would you consider yourself free?
You're a riot. I suppose the word "conclude" is defined in your dictionary as "to begin." Perhaps some time in a 5th grade science class would do you some good?
ROFLMAO! Man, that's brilliant! In other words, if you claim something, that would be a first principle. But claiming something like, "If I claim something, that would be a first principle" is not a first principle because there are no first principles.

Are there absolutes, TS? Are there first principles?
Wait a tic, I thought you just wrote you didn't "say that" there are first principles. Now there are? How many times can you "backtrack?" Would "backtracking" twice bring you back to the beginning? Or does it take you to a whole 'nother level of obfuscation and evasion?
So, making up something completely divorced from reality is no further from, nor closer to, the truth than using observations of reality? Because we can never actually know anything, right?
No thanks. Exposing you for the completely pompous charlatan you are is far more fun. Regardless of how damaging they are to your arguments, definitions are part of the "real world." And the only "word games" I'm playing with you is the game of following you around the shifting sands of your arguments.

I want to expand on this a bit and clarify something.

Cato's argument (from another thread) was that, since doctors are sometimes forced by law to work for poor patients who cannot pay them, and slaves are also forced to work for others' benefit, doctors are slaves.

The reason he made this argument (I believe) was that he wanted to assert that we should feel about doctors being required by law to save the lives, limbs, and health of poor patients who can't pay them (or to accept payments from the government that may be below their standard charges), we should feel about this the way we do about slavery.

However -- and setting aside the dubious nature of the linguistic argument that applies a word with massive connotations to a situation that shares only a single characteristic with those where the word unambiguously applies -- the reality of what the doctor experiences is unchanged by sticking the tag "slavery" onto it.

Why, after all, do we find slavery objectionable? There are a number of reasons, but for me, I object to a system in which some people reduce other people to property, deprive them of all rights as human beings, and subject them at their owners' whims to rape, torture, murder and other grievous brutality. A doctor required to perform free or reduced-charge work for poor patients is not in that situation, and finding some justification for sticking the "slavery" tag on what he faces will not put him in it. He will not become the property of someone else, he will not lose all his rights as a human being, and he will not be subject at anyone else's whim to rape, torture, murder, or other grievous brutality. Therefore, he is not a slave -- or if he is, then we can only conclude that sometimes "slavery" ain't so bad. I wouldn't mind being a "slave" myself under those conditions, including the six-figure income and the high public status! So, even if we were to grant Cato his linguistic point (which I'm not prepared to do), his underlying argument that we should disapprove of requiring doctors to treat poor people free or for reduced charges because this is "slavery" would still fail.

Words are one thing, the reality they apply to is another. Changing the label we apply to something does not change its nature.

Oh, okay.
And that one.
Oh, and I guess that one, too.
Ooops! I guess you should've mentioned that one.
Then, of course, there's that one.
And we can't forget that one.
And that one.
That one.
It should be obvious that is also an absolute.
And that one, of course.
And that one.
Certainly, that one.
And that one.
All would agree that is an absolute.
And that one, naturally.

But no, Marcus, there are no absolute truths when dealing with the world of experience. Silly man.

Which, in short, amounts to: I don't want to put such an emotionally charged term to my philosophical beliefs because that would force me to recognize how truly grievous my philosophy is. By using friendly words to describe my philosophy, and refusing any realistic words, I can continue to delude myself into believing my philosophy results only in good.