Gandhi Alive and Well and Barfing in his Lassi

I'm all for individual freedom, and I don't think you are promoting it.

You're promoting a globalist Pax Americana, which is anathema to liberty.

You're constantly moralizing the right to correct or obstruct people you feel are "not thinking correctly".

This is not a respect for individual liberty. When you want to homogenize and limit creative thought and action, because it does not meet your norms, even when practiced in a group of willing participants, then you have tyranny.

 

Yes, exactly.

That's not quite in line with your previous comment.

Gandhi was, above all else, an Indian nationalist.

The peacenik bit was just the best available tactic to achieve his goals.

 

You're promoting group freedom and the right of groups to oppress individuals. That is in direct opposition to individual freedom.

That is not at all correct. Pax Americana has been the #1 force promoting individual liberty for over 60 years.

People can think however they want -- but when they act to oppress others then their rights to unobstructed action suddenly disappear.

Your support for dictatorship -- as long as you are not personally suffering from it -- is not support for individual liberty. It is direct support for oppression.

Your policies support the enslavement of billions of people who will live and die without ever knowing the opportunity to experience creative thought or action.

Liberty is my norm. It is the most precious thing in this world. It creates peace, it creates wealth, and it gives meaning to life itself.

Get on board the liberty train!

 

Read it again, Will. Gandhi came from a time and place. The "peacenik" bit was an extraordinarily courageous ethos for that time, and that place in world history. In the first third of the twentieth century, nationalism was a universal force. It still is, for the most part. It is unfairly loading the estimation of him to say, "well, yeah, but he was a nationalist." Nationalism is only now coming to be seen for what it is; from its inception in the western powers during the 19th century through to the postwar colonial independence movements, its inertia gave it the almost universal imprimatur of inevitability, and it is only now, in hindsight, that some, and only some, look back to say, "wait...we just made this crap up."

He was, I believe, what I said he was - brilliant, with the kind of ethos rarely found in his political kind; and he was ahead of his time.

 

The right to form groups is a fundamental freedom. Unions, Guilds, Societies, Clubs, Families, Parties.

This evangelical spirit is what is so scary. You advocate spreading freedom with violence and coercion, both of which are not pro-liberty.

So you have no problem with them thinking in a manner which oppresses themselves?

It's a very tricky path, deciding what is right for someone else, under the guise of liberty.

I don't support Dictators. I do support people's right of revolution. Freedom cannot be granted, it must be taken.

Ah, and yet I feel that you cannot see the landmarks as we head down the road to serfdom.

Agree, wholeheartedly.

I've read your writings on liberty. We're not that far apart. However, I cannot justify an "ends justifies the means" approach.

Indeed. It takes a remarkable SOUL to put your life on the line for freedom.

 

You can form whatever groups you want, but those groups don't gain any special rights.

You can join the Bloods or the Crypts or the Islamic Brotherhood, but you still have just the same rights as you had as an individual.

Violence is used in response to violence. Any individual or group can believe whatever they want -- but when they use violence to enforce their beliefs upon others then they lose their right to be free from violence.

If I see you raping a little girl in an alley, I am going to use violence to stop you. If I see a group of people raping a little girl in an alley, I am still going to use violence to stop you. It doesn't matter whether you are an individual or a group. Your forming a group did not magically gain you any special rights.

I'll let my dead friend John answer this one for you:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. -- John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), On Liberty, Chapter 1
​

Either we decide what is right or we let the barbarians decide what is right. There is no third option.

If we abdicate our responsibility to decide what is right, that task will be taken up by those people who feel that it is their right to oppress others.

As I walk into the alley and find that little girl being raped, what do I do when the rapist says to me "According to my understanding of right and wrong, this is right." Do I say "Oh, that's OK. I wouldn't want to enforce my sense of right and wrong on you. Carry on."

No. I do not. The basics of right and wrong -- individual liberty -- are not subjective. The rapist is violating that little girls individual liberty and as a result he loses the moral protection of his own individual liberty.

In your model, the little eight year old girl in the alley is at fault because she is not exercising her right of revolution. She's on her own, because you wouldn't want to violate the rights or the rapist.

Yes, when we care so little for freedom that we are unwilling to defend it -- then we no longer deserve the blessings of freedom. As that point, we have no protections against serfdom.

It is unfortunate that there is not enough space in your ivory tower for all of the people of the planet.

 

That's a vigilante attitude, not a libertarian one. The ends do not justify the means.

And if you see people in an Islamic society practicing a lifestyle you consider oppressive, by what moral authority DO YOU decide that it is immoral and force change (regardless of the will of the people)?

This actually works against your argument. I think you're coloring the interpretation of this quote to suit your position. Your own good (re: moral justification), is not sufficient warrant.

Nonsense. This is the opposite of individual liberty. You're saying that everything is black and white, extremes, with no accounting for individual preferences, or variances between situations.

Liberty is mean to counteract this sort of thinking by protecting the rights of the individual to decide what is right for themselves, even if it is barbaric.

Ends justify the means again. Dangerous path.

Your example again fails because individual liberty doesn't allow for one person to harm another. But you're stretching defense against violence, into defense against ideology. It's the very nature of this pre-emptive assumption of moral superiority that separates statists from libertarians.

Not at all.

Transpose defend with impose. Because you think you are defending, but the party you claim to represent, may not endorse your views, and see them as an imposition. Then you'll see the moral hazard in your approach.

You deny freedom to others by dictating how they should live. A great example of this is Iraq. Why would the Shia, Sunni, and Christians in Iraq want and desire a western style government? And for that matter, why not a Republic as opposed to a Parliamentary system? Isn't that the greatest hypocrisy? The invader imposing a different style of government than they themselves live under?

There is. Under your blood stained flag, there is only space for those who will conform to one model of living, one way of thinking, and one system of government.

 

So you believe that the little girl is deciding to be raped in the alley?

That is completely insane. Liberty can only exist when is is defended by strong men who use their power to protect the weak.

Individual liberty, in no uncertain terms, supports the use of violence against any individual or group who misuses their liberty to violate the liberty of another individual.

Please re-read your own argument. You are not promoting liberty, you are promoting anarchy. Under your current argument, any policeman is the enemy of individual liberty because their job involves harming other individuals.

I don't think you're that stupid. I recommend that you delete your last post and try again to make a more reasoned argument.

 

I tried to let this insult go, but I just can't.



This blood stained flag is your blood stained flag too. If you don't feel that way, then you have very little business becoming involved in a political campaign to determine who the American people will choose as the leader of their great nation.

This nation has been the standard bearer of liberty for over two hundred years and it deserves better than to be disrespected by the likes of you.

The nation has accepted people with many models of living and many ways of thinking -- as long as they have granted the same respect to others. We as a nation do not, however, accept those who use violence to enforce their models of living and ways of thinking on the weak and the innocent. That's the American way. We defeated Imperial Japan and brought liberty to much of Asia. We defeated fascist Germany and Italy and brought freedom to much of Western Europe. Eventually, we defeated the Soviet Union and brought freedom to most of Eastern Europe. Now we are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq to bring freedom to the individuals of those areas.

This blood stained flag has protected you all of your miserable life. The blood on this flag is the blood of your forefathers. The blood on this flag is the blood of the patriots at Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, Iwo Jima, and Normandy Beach.

This flag deserves your respect, though you may not be deserving of all that it has done for you.

 

You should either read my entire post before commenting, or display some intellectual integrity and avoid picking quotes out of context.

Who decides who is strong, and who is weak? Nice example of group thinking though.

No it doesn't. Individual liberty is the right to be left alone, and to self-determination.

I see. So a policeman's job is to harm other individuals. Will, please try again. I believe in laws, not men. Anarchists don't hold that position.

I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to have my doubts about you. You've created strawmen and intentionally taken my position out of context.

Why not? I've had to put up with a fair bit of insult in order to have this discussion with you.

I wasn't referring to the American Flag. It was a response to your "ivory tower" comment.

Don't try to spin a revulsion towards your vicious and immoral position into my lack of respect for my country. You're proving that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

I'm the nationalist, REMEMBER? You're only a nationalist when it is convenient, when it is American. I support American sovereignty, and the right of other nations to also be sovereign.

 

Will, I have to say, while I feel the same kind of emotional response to this shared, collective history, I don't know how the above squares with:

 

Individual liberty is the right to be left alone -- as long as you leave others alone.

The rapist isn't leaving the little girl alone. He gave up his individual liberty the moment he took hers.

You could not have possibly misunderstood that badly on accident.

Let me quote you once again "individual liberty doesn't allow for one person to harm another."

This is a gross misunderstanding. Individual liberty allows the little girl to defend herself by harming the rapist. Individual liberty also allows the policeman to defend the little girl by harming the rapist.

To quote Frederick Bastiat:

The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
​

I am not a nationalist, as I have explained before.

I support the United States only as far as it supports the ideals which I love and upon which the United States was based.

I do not support, in any way the sovereignty of any nation which does not support the rights of individuals.

If the United States of America ever became the source of evil in the world which you paint it to be, I would abandon support for it.

 

Did my explanation to Guerrilla satisfy you?

This reminds me of a conversation we had some time ago.

 

If I am hearing you right, you support the U.S. because it squares with your ideals. Which I know, since we have discussed it, and I'm good with that. And god knows, I am as emotionally attached to this shared history, as anyone. But given that you came out to condemn Gandhi for his nationalism, and then discussed the ephemeral nature of the nation, anyway (I agree), I didn't see how that squared with your discussion of the "blood stained flag," etc. I have to admit I'm still a bit confused as to where you stand. Is it the American nation? Or a bunch of people with a shared history, whose ideals are in concert with yours?

Thanks for the visit back to our discussion - it was an interesting talk. It relates, because it was a discussion of individual actions, enterprise, etc., and that our culture encourages it? (my contention, of course, is that "free enterprise" never was - that government armed enforcement very clearly aligned with heavy capital, to squash any nascent, truly independent labor movement in America).

 

There is no disagreement here.

No disagreement on this either. Where I have issue, is you appointing yourself judge, jury and executioner. I certainly think civilians have a right to promote, maintain and enforce justice WITHIN the law.

The United States might not be more or less a source of evil than other countries. But why aren't we discussing those very points. Do you feel that the laws are just? That they are interpreted fairly, regardless of race or social status?

Do you feel that our democracy works? What about media consolidation and it's effect on the Presidential race?

How do you feel about campaign finance reform as it relates to free speech?

What about collusion and corruption? Pandering to special interests? Lobbying and the purchase of favors either by contract or legislation?

Why are we not discussing the monetary system, one that Bastiat, Reagan, Hayek, Goldwater et al have or would have opposed?

This is my point. Before anyone can claim a moral superiority to forcibly change how others live, by invasion or coercion, perhaps we could address what foundation that moral superiority is built on.

 

Yes, exactly. On the nose.

I stand with those ideals. If a bunch of people deem it wise to stand with me, I'll make sure to bring a cooler of beer. If not, well, that's OK too.

If an entire nation chooses to stand with me, well, that's pretty weird. You aren't going to see that happen very often in the history of mankind. That's something which is pretty special.

That argument will always be partially correct, because whenever you have humans you will have some degree of corruption.

However, that condemnation is a lot less true for early America than for similar nation states at the same time.

Today, there are nation states which are better at "free enterprise" than we are. We're number three, behind Singapore and New Zealand, in the Doing Business rankings.

 

Read the quotation again. You're interpreting it 100% backwards.

It is not the person who is taking on the role of the state. The role naturally and primarily belongs with the person. The person delegates that role to the state when and where the state is able to perform that duty.

I encourage you to read that over until you understand this very important point. Individual liberty comes first. Government rules only by consent of the governed. I also encourage you to review any of the writings of John Locke. He's still the best source of information on this topic.

But I still have the same question for you. You state "individual liberty doesn't allow for one person to harm another." In that world view, all that the little girl can morally do is lay back and pray to God.

As an Atheist, that's not very damned comforting.

Feel free to start dozens of little topics.

That is a patently ridiculous point. Nothing is ever perfect. If you wait for perfection before you act, you will never act.

If I see you dying of a gushing chest wound, I am not going to say "I can't help you, my pinkie is bleeding." I am going to be a man, suck up the pain in my pinkie, and go over to see what I can do about your chest wound.

Hell, I may not even be able to save you -- but damnit I am going to try.

Or, in the words of Gandhi, "You may think your actions are meaningless and that they won't help, but that is no excuse, you must still act."