[General Battuta]

Boy, there's a nonsense statement grounded in nothing.

Nothing other than the fact that attempts to implement socialism on any sort of a large scale have (almost?) invariably used the state's power. Look at Cuba, Soviet Russia, and all the other communist dictatorships.

(nice ad hominem there)

However, I will admit that, on paper, many socialist ideologies do advocate for a very high degree of personal and economic freedom. It's just the implementation that ends up increasing government control.

Come on, dude. You know what an ad hominem is, right? It literally means to the man. It's an attack based on the arguer, not the argument. And I am clearly, explicitly, visibly, without any ambiguity whatsoever saying that the statement you made - not you, the statement you made - is groundless nonsense.

Which it is. This statement:

All other things being equal, a capitalist society will be freer than a socialist society.

is meaningless, and it has no grounding. No one and nothing in history has the capability to substantiate this statement, because never have 'all other things' ever remotely approached being equal.

[Mr. Vega]

Can we not delete posts anymore? Oh yeah, not the last one in the thread.

[Mr. Vega]

I'm deleting the above post - I did not intend to invoke Godwin's Law, just to provide the most extreme counterexample possible.

[Mr. Vega]

Nothing other than the fact that attempts to implement socialism on any sort of a large scale have (almost?) invariably used the state's power. Look at Cuba, Soviet Russia, and all the other communist dictatorships.

(nice ad hominem there)

However, I will admit that, on paper, many socialist ideologies do advocate for a very high degree of personal and economic freedom. It's just the implementation that ends up increasing government control.

What about the Spanish anarchists in 1936? Not without flaws, and quickly destroyed by attack from both the fascists and the Soviet-supported Marxists and Republicans, but still.

[General Battuta]

The relative freedom of various societies is hardly a useful topic in these discussions anyway, since nobody can pin down what freedom is. Is a society without laws 'freer' than one with laws? Superficially, maybe (that seems to be the level at which 'freedom' has been considered so far), but given freedom to act many people will freely take away the freedoms of others, whether through some antisocial action or neglect, or just by killing them. If we ban antisocial behaviors, restricting freedom, but thereby render people free from the negative consequences of those actions, have we actually expanded freedoms? How do we weigh negative freedoms versus positive freedoms? How do we weigh the distribution of freedom within a culture - is it more important for fewer people to have more freedom (as in capitalism, where it's possible to accumulate enormous capital, but probable that you won't and that your range of action will be comparatively restricted), or for everyone to have a little freedom (as in some notional leveler state, where everybody is guaranteed social services, but no one can accumulate the capital to undertake large projects)?

Is a truly anarchic society, where your risk of death by violence or misadventure is high and the infrastructure is basically nonexistent, free - given that only a narrow spectrum of actions permit your survival, and few actions at all permit you to exist in anything but a subsistence mode?

Is Omelas a free society?

[Mr. Vega]

If by "hardly a useful topic in these discussions anyway" you mean "something that we haven't been taught how to evaluate seriously by our society", then yeah.

Freedom has no meaning if isn't something that supposed to be applied universally to all. The freedom of elites over their subjects isn't freedom. If I have a gun pointed at you, I have the freedom to do whatever I want and you can't stop me. That isn't freedom - that's just might making right. Freedom as a useful concept is something created by everyone acting according to a mutual defense pact to defend each others' liberty.

And to your last question,

No.

[Apollo]

Come on, dude. You know what an ad hominem is, right? It literally means to the man. It's an attack based on the arguer, not the argument. And I am clearly, explicitly, visibly, without any ambiguity whatsoever saying that the statement you made - not you, the statement you made - is groundless nonsense.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary would like to have a word with you:

ad ho·mi·nem adjective \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\

Definition of AD HOMINEM

1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

"Boy, there's a nonsense statement grounded in nothing." fits the first definition. It is an emotional appeal that makes no rational statement on anything.

Which it is. This statement:

All other things being equal, a capitalist society will be freer than a socialist society.

is meaningless, and it has no grounding. No one and nothing in history has the capability to substantiate this statement, because never have 'all other things' ever remotely approached being equal.

State-implemented (not anarchist) socialist policies restrict economic freedom by interfering (to good or bad ends) with the economy. This diminishes the society's average level of freedom, regardless of its overall political system.

The relative freedom of various societies is hardly a useful topic in these discussions anyway, since nobody can pin down what freedom is. Is a society without laws 'freer' than one with laws? Superficially, maybe (that seems to be the level at which 'freedom' has been considered so far), but given freedom to act many people will freely take away the freedoms of others, whether through some antisocial action or neglect, or just by killing them. If we ban antisocial behaviors, restricting freedom, but thereby render people free from the negative consequences of those actions, have we actually expanded freedoms? How do we weigh negative freedoms versus positive freedoms? How do we weigh the distribution of freedom within a culture - is it more important for fewer people to have more freedom (as in capitalism, where it's possible to accumulate enormous capital, but probable that you won't and that your range of action will be comparatively restricted), or for everyone to have a little freedom (as in some notional leveler state, where everybody is guaranteed social services, but no one can accumulate the capital to undertake large projects)?

Is Omelas a free society?

I somewhat agree with that, but my point still stands if you use the definition of "freedom from government" (I am).

Omelas? I haven't read that story.

[General Battuta]

Come on, dude. You know what an ad hominem is, right? It literally means to the man. It's an attack based on the arguer, not the argument. And I am clearly, explicitly, visibly, without any ambiguity whatsoever saying that the statement you made - not you, the statement you made - is groundless nonsense.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary would like to have a word with you:

ad ho·mi·nem adjective \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\

Definition of AD HOMINEM

1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

"Boy, there's a nonsense statement grounded in nothing." fits the first definition. It is an emotional appeal that makes no rational statement on anything.

It makes a perfectly clear rational statement on something very precise: your statement, which is groundless (it cannot be substantiated) and nonsense (it is not a logically coherent statement). I've explained why. You're free to engage with that explanation now.

e: wait, you did!

State-implemented (not anarchist) socialist policies restrict economic freedom by interfering (to good or bad ends) with the economy. This diminishes the society's average level of freedom, regardless of its overall political system.

I somewhat agree with that, but my point still stands if you use the definition of "freedom from government" (I am).

You're deplying a tautology here: state implemented socialist policies restrict economic freedom because they reduce freedom, which you define as freedom from government. Your argument is that freedom from government is reduced when the government takes actions which reduce freedom.

What I think you want to say is that when state actors declare rules that constrain the behavior of economic actors, they reduce the action space available to the society as a whole. But this only holds if the state intervention in the market doesn't actually end up expanding the action space. A great example is stock markets. Stock markets behave more efficiently without insider information. States can punish the use of insider information. This improves the efficiency of the stock market (as in the case of the Dutch East India Corporation, which had a marvelous run until its eventual collapse) and expands the action space available to both the society and its members.

In this case, state action (which you define as a reduction in freedom) actually leads to an expansion in 'freedom' (though see above for my contention that this is not a useful term).

[Mr. Vega]

I somewhat agree with that, but my point still stands if you use the definition of "freedom from government" (I am).

Oh ok, so I can imprison and enslave you, but as long as the government doesn't get involved, you're still free?

I can fool you into agreeing to a fraudulent mortgage contract, and when it goes belly up I can take your house and force you to work as my servant until you can pay the debts as stated in the contract, but as long as the government isn't involved, you're still free?

[Mr. Vega]

Dammit Battuta, reply to my posts! Me! MEEEEEeeeee!

[General Battuta]

I somewhat agree with that, but my point still stands if you use the definition of "freedom from government" (I am).

Oh ok, so I can imprison and enslave you, but as long as the government doesn't get involved, you're still free?

I can fool you into agreeing to a fraudulent mortgage contract, and when it goes belly up I can take your house and force you to work as my servant until you can pay the debts as stated in the contract, but as long as the government isn't involved, you're still free?

Bond markets are another great example of this. The government can create and sell bonds. This is government intervention in the market. By Apollo's definition this is a reduction in freedom. Yet the bond market allows private citizens enormous economic leverage; they can develop huge fortunes and even (as James Carville pointed out so famously) influence government behavior. The bond market is a cornerstone of capitalist society, but it's in large part about state intervention - the very stability of states as compared to corporations is what makes state bonds such important economic tools.

[General Battuta]

Dammit Battuta, reply to my posts! Me! MEEEEEeeeee!

See, I did! You make good points that I tend to agree with, though, and I don't think you of all people need to be informed that The Issue Is More Complex Than You Realize, which is most of what I do in GD.

e: I missed this though, this is a lot of what I was trying to get at:

Freedom has no meaning if isn't something that supposed to be applied universally to all. The freedom of elites over their subjects isn't freedom. If I have a gun pointed at you, I have the freedom to do whatever I want and you can't stop me. That isn't freedom - that's just might making right. Freedom as a useful concept is something created by everyone acting according to a mutual defense pact to defend each others' liberty.

[Apollo]

It makes a perfectly clear rational statement on something very precise: your statement, which is groundless (it cannot be substantiated) and nonsense (it is not a logically coherent statement). I've explained why. You're free to engage with that explanation now.

You presented a logical argument after I replied to your first post that did not bother to explain why I was wrong ("that's a dumb argument" is not logical). It was ad hominem because, initially, you did not back it up with any logic.

You're deplying a tautology here: state implemented socialist policies restrict economic freedom because they reduce freedom, which you define as freedom from government. Your argument is that freedom from government is reduced when the government takes actions which reduce freedom.

I'd think "freedom from government is reduced when the government takes actions which reduce freedom." is rather self-explanatory.

What I think you want to say is that when state actors declare rules that constrain the behavior of economic actors, they reduce the action space available to the society as a whole. But this only holds if the state intervention in the market doesn't actually end up expanding the action space. A great example is stock markets. Stock markets behave more efficiently without insider information. States can punish the use of insider information. This improves the efficiency of the stock market (as in the case of the Dutch East India Corporation, which had a marvelous run until its eventual collapse) and expands the action space available to both the society and its members.

In this case, state action (which you define as a reduction in freedom) actually leads to an expansion in 'freedom' (though see above for my contention that this is not a useful term).

Nope. By "freedom", I simply mean absence of government intervention, which is also the definition the Political Compass uses. I'm using that definition because this argument spawned from a criticism I leveled at it.

[General Battuta]

It makes a perfectly clear rational statement on something very precise: your statement, which is groundless (it cannot be substantiated) and nonsense (it is not a logically coherent statement). I've explained why. You're free to engage with that explanation now.

You presented a logical argument after I replied to your first post that did not bother to explain why I was wrong ("that's a dumb argument" is not logical). It was ad hominem because, initially, you did not back it up with any logic.

I did not back it up, you're correct, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem. It makes it a statement about the merit of your statement. An ad hominem statement would be 'Boy, you're dumb' rather than 'boy, that statement is dumb'.

I'd think "freedom from government is reduced when the government takes actions which reduce freedom." is rather self-explanatory.

It's not, and that's the fundamental problem of your whole argument - you've just tautologically passed the definition of freedom on to the last word there, freedom. What if the government takes actions which expand 'freedom', such as punishing the use of insider information in the stock market?

What it seems like you want to say here is 'freedom from government is reduced when the government takes actions'.

]Nope. By "freedom", I simply mean absence of government intervention, which is also the definition the Political Compass uses. I'm using that definition because this argument spawned from a criticism I leveled at it.

My assertion is that this is an incomplete definition of freedom, groundless and nonsensical, and that any statement that incorporates it is also groundless and nonsensical.

[Apollo]

I did not back it up, you're correct, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem. It makes it a statement about the merit of your statement. An ad hominem statement would be 'Boy, you're dumb' rather than 'boy, that statement is dumb'.

That's one definition, but another simply refers to substituting rational arguments for emotional ones. That accurately describes your first statement.

It's not, and that's the fundamental problem of your whole argument - you've just tautologically passed the definition of freedom on to the last word there, freedom. What if the government takes actions which expand 'freedom', such as punishing the use of insider information in the stock market?

It is, because freedom reducing actions obviously reduce freedom.

I never actually used that definition (my bad, should have pointed that out in my previous post).

What it seems like you want to say here is 'freedom from government is reduced when the government takes actions'.

In this case, I'm using the latter despite its limitations.

My assertion is that this is an incomplete definition of freedom, groundless and nonsensical, and that any statement that incorporates it is also groundless and nonsensical.

My assertion is that that definition's flaws don't matter in this particular case, because I was criticizing something that uses that it for its calculations. Therefore, I must also use that definition.

I'd also question your claim that it is "nonsensical". Incomplete, certainly, but it can still be useful when talking about political systems.

[General Battuta]

I did not back it up, you're correct, but that doesn't make it an ad hominem. It makes it a statement about the merit of your statement. An ad hominem statement would be 'Boy, you're dumb' rather than 'boy, that statement is dumb'.

That's one definition, but another simply refers to substituting rational arguments for emotional ones. That accurately describes your first statement.

No, it doesn't, man. It was an evaluation of the quality of your statement. That's a rational argument, and you're not going to get any interesting posts out of arguing otherwise.

It is, because freedom reducing actions obviously reduce freedom.

This isn't obvious at all. For reasons why, please consult this post. http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84394.msg1687286#msg1687286

I'm discussing this statement:

All other things being equal, a capitalist society will be freer than a socialist society.

[karajorma]

Quit bickering about ad hominem arguments. You both know full well I'd have banned anyone who made one.

[General Battuta]

Quite.

[Apollo]

No, it doesn't, man. It was an evaluation of the quality of your statement. That's a rational argument, and you're not going to get any interesting posts out of arguing otherwise.

Calling an argument "nonsense" is an emotional appeal. It does not, in and of itself, explain why the argument is wrong. This tactic works fine when mixed in with logical arguments, but your first post didn't have any.

This isn't obvious at all. For reasons why, please consult this post. http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84394.msg1687286#msg1687286

You make a good point in that post: laws that seem restrictive can actually expand freedom (in the more complex sense). However, that would prevent them from being freedom-reducing actions (if you use a less superficial definition).

This is quite interesting, and I really do think you made some good points in there. On the other hand, my original argument required me to use the Political Compass's definition.

I'm discussing this statement:

All other things being equal, a capitalist society will be freer than a socialist society.

And that statement was designed to point out a flaw in the Political Compass's scale and analysis of political figures, requiring me to use its definitions. Sure, socialist policies may expand opportunities and therefore freedom in one sense, but by the definitions of that scale they decrease it by increasing government intervention* (at least, the state-administered forms do). I'm not arguing in favor of that logic, but I have to use it in that case.

*: Although, that piece of information came from MP-Ryan, and I accepted it because it seemed the only conceivable explanation for the placement of our political figures. There is some chance it's wrong, but that would just mean their analysis of politicians is even more skewed than I thought.

[karajorma]

The sentence is nonsense in the same way that "All things being equal, apples are better than oranges" is nonsense.

It's a opinion that requires such a massively detailed definition of what you are comparing, how all things can be equal, and what your criterion for better are that it is completely pointless.