More challenges to the charter rights of assembly

[Moonbox]

Yes...I think he did. Whoops!

[Archanfel]

No offense but that's a goofy straw-man and you seem to really be confusing the definition of freedom.

What is the definition of freedom? Philosophers can't even agree. If one man serves another to avoid being beaten, is he free? If one man serves another in order to afford food, is he free? If one man serves another in order to buy a large screen TV, is he free? If one man willingly serves another, is he free?

[guyser]

What is the definition of freedom? Philosophers can't even agree. If one man serves another to avoid being beaten, is he free? If one man serves another in order to afford food, is he free? If one man serves another in order to buy a large screen TV, is he free? If one man willingly serves another, is he free?

He's free to walk away.

[Archanfel]

He's free to walk away.

Is he? If he couldn't afford food for him and his family, how could he walk away? And if he was not even aware of there are another way of life, how could he walk away? What if he had no transportation to leave? So the biggest issue with freedom is whether the negative sense of liberty is enough. Is somebody free to walk away if he is not prevented by force?

Edited April 18, 2013 by Archanfel

[guyser]

Is he? If he couldn't afford food for him and his family, how could he walk away?

By putting one foot in front of the other.

And if he was not even aware of there are another way of life, how could he walk away? What if he had no transportation to leave? So the biggest issue with freedom is whether the negative sense of liberty is enough. Is somebody free to walk away if he is not prevented by force?

He is free to walk anytime he wants.

The moment a man is held back forcefully he is not free

[Guest]

What is the definition of freedom? Philosophers can't even agree. If one man serves another to avoid being beaten, is he free? If one man serves another in order to afford food, is he free? If one man serves another in order to buy a large screen TV, is he free? If one man willingly serves another, is he free?

Philosophers just hope we'll keep paying them. If they agreed on something, that'd be the end of that issue and one less reason to keep them on.

[Archanfel]

By putting one foot in front of the other.He is free to walk anytime he wants.

The moment a man is held back forcefully he is not free

What if he was a cripple that can't put one foot in front of another? Or if he was too hungry to walk?

Philosophers just hope we'll keep paying them. If they agreed on something, that'd be the end of that issue and one less reason to keep them on.

I don't think Berlin is on the payroll of the Canadian tax payers. The definition of freedom signifcantly impacts social policies. Classic liberalism tends to agree with Guyser here that somebody is only not free if they were held back forcefully. Modern liberalism argue that if even if somebody is not forcefully prevented to leave, if he does not have the mean to leave, he is still not free to leave. Some libertarians would go as far as saying that threats do not count as force. Therefore, if somebody told the guy, I would shoot you if you leave, he is still considered free to leave as long as the shot was not fired. Most of our social policies are based on the positive sense of liberty as we believe we should help the most unfortunate members of the society to achieve liberty. Berlin warned that, while well intentioned, such policies tends to lead to the loss of the negative liberty. And in our society, we have limited liberty to spend our money freely due to heavy taxations to fund positive liberty of others. More importantly, we do not have the liberty to use the cheapest labours we could find.

Some researchers had an interesting finding. Before the civil war, the factory workers in the north were not necessarily better off than the slaves in the south. While they were certain more free, factory owners were not responsible for their care and retirement like the slave masters were for their slaves. Therefore, these workers had to work harder to save for sickness and retirement.

Even negative freedoms are not without their limits. For example, robbing a bank is generally not considered a freedom because it impacts on other people's freedom. Therefore, in the most strict sense, the right to assemble only means that the government should not forcefully prevent people to assemble providing they are not reducing the freedom of others. The government should not facilitate assembles and prevent assembles on public ground is not necessarily a violation of such right. The boundary of negative liberties are arbitrated by the courts.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Archanfel

[guyser]

What if he was a cripple that can't put one foot in front of another? Or if he was too hungry to walk?

So?

The person is still free.

[Archanfel]

So?

The person is still free.

I agree. Unfortunately, very few people do.

[g_bambino]

n the most strict sense, the right to assemble only means that the government should not forcefully prevent people to assemble providing they are not reducing the freedom of others. The government should not facilitate assembles and prevent assembles on public ground is not necessarily a violation of such right. The boundary of negative liberties are arbitrated by the courts.

And that is the essence of what the Charter and, beyond it, Common Law says about our rights in this country; which some of us have been trying to explain here to shortlived. At last sign, however, it seemed he still wasn't getting it.

[Guest]

What if he was a cripple that can't put one foot in front of another? Or if he was too hungry to walk?

I don't think Berlin is on the payroll of the Canadian tax payers. The definition of freedom signifcantly impacts social policies. Classic liberalism tends to agree with Guyser here that somebody is only not free if they were held back forcefully. Modern liberalism argue that if even if somebody is not forcefully prevented to leave, if he does not have the mean to leave, he is still not free to leave. Some libertarians would go as far as saying that threats do not count as force. Therefore, if somebody told the guy, I would shoot you if you leave, he is still considered free to leave as long as the shot was not fired. Most of our social policies are based on the positive sense of liberty as we believe we should help the most unfortunate members of the society to achieve liberty. Berlin warned that, while well intentioned, such policies tends to lead to the loss of the negative liberty. And in our society, we have limited liberty to spend our money freely due to heavy taxations to fund positive liberty of others. More importantly, we do not have the liberty to use the cheapest labours we could find.

Some researchers had an interesting finding. Before the civil war, the factory workers in the north were not necessarily better off than the slaves in the south. While they were certain more free, factory owners were not responsible for their care and retirement like the slave masters were for their slaves. Therefore, these workers had to work harder to save for sickness and retirement.

Even negative freedoms are not without their limits. For example, robbing a bank is generally not considered a freedom because it impacts on other people's freedom. Therefore, in the most strict sense, the right to assemble only means that the government should not forcefully prevent people to assemble providing they are not reducing the freedom of others. The government should not facilitate assembles and prevent assembles on public ground is not necessarily a violation of such right. The boundary of negative liberties are arbitrated by the courts.

Are you a philosopher? Sorry about that.

[Archanfel]

Are you a philosopher? Sorry about that.

A philosopher's job is to solve philosophical problems, to give reasons behind human behaviours. Berlin was a philosopher. I was simply pointing out the different definitions of liberty and their effects, nothing new.