254: The Ways of Liberalism 1

[13:06] herman Bergson: Gemma isnt there...
[13:06] herman Bergson: Qwark???
[13:06] Abraxas Nagy: she isnt well herman
[13:07] herman Bergson: oh dear...
[13:07] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:07] Qwark Allen: she is sick
[13:07] herman Bergson: bad news... :-(
[13:07] Abraxas Nagy: the flew ?
[13:07] Qwark Allen: with some food poisoning, since yesterday
[13:07] herman Bergson: nothing serious I hope
[13:07] Qwark Allen: no
[13:07] Qwark Allen: just feeling bad, cause of vomiting
[13:07] Zinzi Serevi: poor girl
[13:08] Abraxas Nagy: awww :(
[13:08] Qwark Allen: yes, terrible
[13:08] herman Bergson: heard that story before last week....friend of mine same thing...
[13:08] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:08] Qwark Allen: could be a virus also
[13:08] Qwark Allen: they do sometimes things like this
[13:08] herman Bergson: Both US....
[13:08] Abraxas Nagy: it probably is m8
[13:08] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:09] Qwark Allen: it`s a "bug" for sure
[13:09] Qwark Allen: ╔╗╔═╦╗
[13:09] Qwark Allen: ║╚╣║║╚╗
[13:09] Qwark Allen: ╚═╩═╩═╝
[13:09] bergfrau Apfelbaum: lol
[13:09] herman Bergson: she should reset the system
[13:09] Qwark Allen: eehheeh
[13:09] Abraxas Nagy: vomitting and feeling rotten.. are the sympthoms
[13:09] Qwark Allen: i told her to run the antivirus next time
[13:09] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:09] Abraxas Nagy: often
[13:09] herman Bergson: lol...most effective
[13:10] herman Bergson: Well let's hope for the best...my friend recovered after a few days...next time Gemma will be up and running
[13:10] Qwark Allen: yes, i hope so to
[13:10] herman Bergson: Let's turn to the subject of today...
[13:11] herman Bergson: Ok...let me begin



To show you how close our philosophical discourse here in class is to reality I'd like to tell you about an article I read in my newspaper this very morning.

The article was an in-depth analysis of the masses and in particular of the behavior of the masses of speculators on the free money market, one of the goodies of liberalism.

The main theme was that speculators claim to act rationally on movements in the market, but reality shows that they don't act on rational analyses of facts at all, they just run after each other.

China is hot so they all run to China for investments and as soon as someone drops the message "The inflation in China is increasing rapidly" the masses of speculators turn their back on China and run, which causes inflation to increase rapidly indeed.

Then the author compares this with the behavior of voters in a democracy, where you see similar behavior of the masses and his conclusion is almost literally "quoted" from my lectures.

Democracy", he writes, " can only function properly if the voters demand certain standards of honesty and truthfulness. You could demand that from speculators too.Voter and speculator have to be re-educated and restricted by rules, so that these irrationally motivated movements of the masses not become too dominant"

Here I read exactly what we are studying here.
One : the idea that the individual is , and should be free
Two : we need virtues like honesty and truthfulness to show better behavior
Three: We can achieve that by education

These are literally the ideas we heard last week in the lecture on Adam Smith. A positive view on humankind: one can be a better man by being virtuous. This will improve the proper functioning of a free market and in this development education is quintessential.

By definition, a liberal is one who believes in liberty, but because different people at different times have meant different things by liberty, “liberalism” is correspondingly ambiguous.

Liberals have typically maintained that humans are naturally in ‘a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions…as they think fit…without asking leave, or depending on the Will of any other Man’ (Locke).

John Stuart Mill too argued that ‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’.

This means, that freedom to act is a normative basic of being. You could call this natural law. One of the laws of nature philosophers kept looking for since Newton.

Thus, not freedom, but any attempt to restrict our freedom should be justified. The burden of proof lies by those who want to restrict us. To begin with our government and its endless flood of laws and regulations.

Consequently, a central question of liberal political theory is whether political authority can be justified, and if so, how. And as we have seen, to begin with Hobbes, the political philosophers came up with the Social Contract theory.

An other element that will need our attention is, that the origin of liberalism is closely related to the French Revolution of 1789. In particular with its slogan "Freedom, equality and fraternity".

We already discussed the concept of freedom / liberty, but equally important is the concept of equality. This equality is a presupposition of liberalism …. or are not all men equal? Are some men maybe "more equal", to wink at "Animal Farm" by George Orwell?

Lots of work to do here………



The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: so much for a kick off
[13:22] herman Bergson: There are many questions to answer, as there are many different theories on liberalism
[13:22] TBDiscovery Harbour: The part about equality that catches my eye is that a free market helps to select those who are good at different enterprises and those who are not. Any attempt to maintain equality in that sense would be akin to egalitarianism or utopia.
[13:22] herman Bergson: besides that..is it a good theory for all mankind for instance
[13:23] herman Bergson: or Why is is so moninant as a polittical theory?
[13:23] herman Bergson: things like that I will address in coming lectures
[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any further suggestions, questions or ideas..plz speak ㋡
[13:24] oola Neruda: equal or... equal under the law
[13:24] herman Bergson: that is what I am thinking about oola
[13:24] herman Bergson: today I asked myself...do we OWN the earth?
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: Any attempt at all, TBD?
[13:24] herman Bergson: and when born here...what else are we but totally free?
[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: totally dependant
[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes TD....you hit the nerve
[13:25] TBDiscovery Harbour: An attempt to force an equality would mean taking from another to begin a new equilibrium, Repose.
[13:25] TBDiscovery Harbour: It disrupts the market.
[13:26] herman Bergson: But the other story is the distribution of wealth...
[13:26] TBDiscovery Harbour: In a sense, it handicaps, which is what the government does by interjecting stimulus, regulations, etc.
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: But the initial acquisition is sometimes a forceful and unjust act ㋡
[13:26] herman Bergson: Just the market means for instance the power of the strongest
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: there are larger issues of justice here
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: the market is amoral
[13:27] TBDiscovery Harbour: If we are talking about individual freedoms, then any who seeks to take, whether it be a corporation or government, would be out of line.
[13:27] herman Bergson: yes repose....
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: individual freedom is not absolute, TBD
[13:27] herman Bergson: It is not about taking TD..it is about sharing...
[13:27] herman Bergson: About social fairness
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: exactly
[13:28] TBDiscovery Harbour: But it makes perfect sense to have the strong working in labor positions, as they would earn the most in reward for their productivity.
[13:28] TBDiscovery Harbour: So we're talking about sharing...which would effectively be taking, if the government sets regulations.
[13:28] herman Bergson: For instance,,,you inherit a few millions....and you start a company that destroys all small retailers
[13:28] TBDiscovery Harbour: It's sharing to those who receive the entitlement.
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: except it is mostly the poor, weak or strong, who do so
[13:28] herman Bergson: just because you have to money and make more money...is that the idea of a society?
[13:29] TBDiscovery Harbour: But you said in the beginning that education is key. If the citizens are not educated, then they would beware of monopolistic intentions.
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes TD....
[13:30] herman Bergson: but what of all those human being that have difficulty with learning?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Who are not the most gifted in our society?
[13:30] TBDiscovery Harbour: It does not mean that we take from high earners, in my opinion.
[13:30] herman Bergson: Should we trash them because they cant be educated?
[13:30] TBDiscovery Harbour: If the high earner is a philanthropist, sure.
[13:30] oola Neruda: the word gifted... is dependent upon what one values
[13:30] Bruce Mowbray: "the greatest good for the greatest number"?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce....
[13:31] Bruce Mowbray: You mentioned JS Mill -- Utilitarianism = liberalism?
[13:31] herman Bergson: As you see in these short discussion..there are hundreds of questions to deal with
[13:31] TBDiscovery Harbour: So this means that we would have to be willing to sacrifice personal freedoms in order for wealth to be redistributed.
[13:31] herman Bergson: I wouldnt sat that TD
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: Education is over-rated, I think....groups of people tend to function at the lowest moral common denominator...there are many highly educated Wall Streeters who greedilydrove the economy into the ground knowing what they were doing
[13:32] Zinzi Serevi: i agree
[13:32] TBDiscovery Harbour: Well taxation in order to spend extra funding on the mentally disabled would be by force.
[13:32] herman Bergson: What is the relation with personal freedom....freedom of property?
[13:32] Zinzi's translator: i agree
[13:32] Bruce Mowbray: I'm willing to redistribute mugs of coffee to anyone who wants them. IM me.
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: is there no room for love in your philosophy, TBD ㋡
[13:33] TBDiscovery Harbour: I just dislike the view that others think they can take because of a universal standard of social good.
[13:33] herman Bergson: Many philosophers belief in the virtue of benevolence as one of the things that make us human
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: sharing is the key concept here
[13:33] herman Bergson: That is a good point TD...
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: and the interdependence that we all have in human societies
[13:33] TBDiscovery Harbour: But it's not sharing. Do we allow those who don't want to share not to share?
[13:33] oola Neruda: one would not necessarily have to force taxation for spending extra on mentally disabled... again...it depends upon your values
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: sure...just don't take a thing.
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: nothing at all ㋡
[13:34] oola Neruda: people who have experience with people with handicaps often find that they love these individuals even more than they could have imagined
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: think about how much you DO take ㋡
[13:34] TBDiscovery Harbour: We are certainly interdependent, but each comes with his or her own skill sets.
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: and inevitably so
[13:34] oola Neruda: for it is from them that they learn some of the greatest lessons
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: no one denies that
[13:35] TBDiscovery Harbour: But you are justifying a forced taking from others. That is different from barter.
[13:35] oola Neruda: your values again
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: no, just suggesting you share or go away
[13:35] herman Bergson: One interesting pointr TD....you constantly talk about TAKING
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: from human society
[13:35] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, oola. I'm not denying the gift others have to offer. I just do not like the notion that others should be required to feel the same way.
[13:36] herman Bergson: I think we'll have to have a close look at the relation between citizen and govenrment...
[13:36] oola Neruda: smiles... true... we do not all feel the same
[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: Doesn't the concept of society or community imply sharing -- of values, territory, even goods?
[13:36] herman Bergson: Is the government a TAKING institution?
[13:36] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, most certainly, Professor.
[13:36] herman Bergson: Good point too Bruce...we need to pay attention to that
[13:37] herman Bergson: Ok TD...yo made a clear statement...
[13:37] TBDiscovery Harbour: If I do not pay my property taxes, then the government will take it.
[13:37] herman Bergson: So here we have an issue of analysis: Is a government a TAKING institution
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes, useful and interesting counterpoint, TBD
[13:38] herman Bergson: From a Social contract idea, that would be hard to defend
[13:38] oola Neruda: the government is not THEM... the government is US... WE... US
[13:38] herman Bergson: From a tyrran's point of view it is right
[13:38] oola Neruda: we need to be active as government
[13:38] TBDiscovery Harbour: However, I understand your point that redistribution allocates capital to areas of low production, so the government could be cycling the economy.
[13:39] oola Neruda: not just watch
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes oola..if it is us..how can we take fromourselves?
[13:39] herman Bergson: One thing for sure....
[13:39] herman Bergson: I gonna reread our discussion carefully....
[13:40] herman Bergson: It is loaded with good questions and remarks already
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: well, if the underpinnings of every republic (and most democracies) are oligarchical, there is something of a "them" in them ㋡
[13:40] TBDiscovery Harbour: But such redistribution further creates social stratification because even the most ardent supporter of charity does not like to be told how to allocate income.
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: historical underpinnings, i meant
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Repose
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: Rome, Venice, etc
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: and most current ones, though moderated
[13:41] herman Bergson: But money is allocated to education and militairy defences for instance TD
[13:41] oola Neruda: returning to what you said earlier... about the need for honesty... when you get corrupt officials (in particular, those who enforce)... then it is not really US..WE... US... it becomes THEM...
[13:41] herman Bergson: That is accepted by every taxpayer I guess
[13:41] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, they are considered public goods.
[13:41] oola Neruda: and one of their best weapons is to deny education
[13:42] TBDiscovery Harbour: Not true, Professor.
[13:42] TBDiscovery Harbour: In the US we have a failing public school system and the funds are wasted.
[13:42] Krissy Harbour: it becomes them when people are dependent on them
[13:42] herman Bergson: that is a technical issue not a political one I would say...
[13:42] oola Neruda: teachers are on the front lines in this issue... they are expected to solve the problems that are really not in their control
[13:43] TBDiscovery Harbour: I would disagree because if we do not hold the government accountable, then they become larger without checks and balances.
[13:43] oola Neruda: i mentioned, last class, a child in fourth grade who has frequent hangovers
[13:43] herman Bergson: Wait...before we begin to discuss these details...
[13:43] oola Neruda: that is a mere symptom...
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, teachers fail because they are not free to do their best
[13:43] oola Neruda: the social problems in a community are beyond the pervue of the teachers
[13:43] herman Bergson: the basic principal is that a government redistributes money by funding public education..
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: true, too
[13:43] oola Neruda: but, they do their best with what they get
[13:44] herman Bergson: no body opposes to that
[13:44] Coffee Mug whispers: Ahh! Fresh Hot Coffee
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: not any more, Prof
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: mostly
[13:44] herman Bergson: whether it is done the right or wrong way doesnt affect the princial
[13:44] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, true Professor, but even those students who attend private schools must pay. So yes, they do oppose.
[13:44] TBDiscovery Harbour: I don't see how we can assume that no one opposes the taking of funds.
[13:45] oola Neruda: they are paying in order to escape the hubris of the the problems in society/neighborhoods
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well here we have such a difference...
[13:45] TBDiscovery Harbour: But I argue that public funding creates such detrimental aspects.
[13:45] herman Bergson: the US has expensive private schools...
[13:45] herman Bergson: a phenomenon hardly known in Europe..or at least in The Netherlands..
[13:46] Bruce Mowbray: ??? England has some VERY expensive "private" schools.
[13:46] herman Bergson: but we all have liberals among our political parties
[13:46] TBDiscovery Harbour: Understood. But I still feel that assuming that everyone does not oppose taxation, regardless of usage, is incorrect.
[13:46] herman Bergson: so one libarel isnt the same as the other liberal...
[13:46] herman Bergson: we have to look into that too
[13:47] Krissy Harbour: I agree
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: The French Revolution demonstrated that, too.
[13:47] herman Bergson: Oppose to taxation in general TD?
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: interesting question
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: ?
[13:48] TBDiscovery Harbour: If we are classical liberals, then yes. I argue that the private sector can perform better in 90% of the government's purview.
[13:48] herman Bergson: Ok..Imagine a society without taxation.....we can think about that, yes
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: ok, we agree
[13:48] TBDiscovery Harbour: Private businesses can fail, the government cannot without a revolution.
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: though we might agrue the percentage
[13:48] Krissy Harbour: true
[13:49] oola Neruda: last class i also mentioned how one private sector infringes upon other ones... for example ... pollution of water or air that crosses state boundaries
[13:49] herman Bergson: I am fascinated by your point of view TD...I love it....lots of questions...
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: but for the percentage that the government does perform best, we need taxation, right?
[13:49] TBDiscovery Harbour: The government comes in when a public good will not be provided by the private sector simply because it is a profit losing venture. So, at its essence, government is a profit losing venture.
[13:49] oola Neruda: someone has to set agreements between the separate private sectors
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: public education has the greater purpose of providing an educational floor as a benefit to the nation's democracy
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well I reacall a quote.... was it Fauber.... "Governement is evil: anarchy is more eviel, yet government is evil
[13:50] oola Neruda: it sounds like money is the object of value... not the common good
[13:50] herman Bergson: we;ll look into that too
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: it is not all economics, TBD
[13:51] herman Bergson: Good point oola!!!
[13:51] TBDiscovery Harbour: But it is a public education mandated and performed by the government, which we agree is not the most optimal source of efficiency and effectiveness. We prolong it because we don't know any other way.
[13:51] herman Bergson: We are talking about a society..and indeed not only its economics
[13:52] oola Neruda: because power (especially in the private sector, i would say) corrupts... and money corrupts even more
[13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: Well, oola, it depends on the percentage of individuals who are willing to work for charity or the common good. If that percentage is large, then great, but if not, then we must not force others to become charitable through regulation.
[13:52] herman Bergson: Interesting point TD....
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: noo...we prolong it because it is necessary for the functioning of a democracy.
[13:52] oola Neruda: were you born with a silver spoon and enjoyed perfect health all your life TB
[13:52] TBDiscovery Harbour: So this would ultimately create societies of like-minded individuals.
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: doubt that ㋡
[13:53] herman Bergson: Is the human being basically selfish in a Hobbesian sense or is is by nature a social being like Adam Smith claimed
[13:53] TBDiscovery Harbour: No, I want to be free and not have others impose their will on me.
[13:53] Krissy Harbour: he worked for it
[13:53] Qwark Allen: individuals work for charity when they have their own needs full fill
[13:53] oola Neruda: thinking of ayn rand....
[13:53] Qwark Allen: in "poor" comunitys that is not a reality suitable
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes me too oola...have to reread her definitely ^_^
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...we can never really be free in your sense. We are inevitably interdependent
[13:54] oola Neruda: one thing that creates compassion in a person is to see what is really out there... and better yet to experience it
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: the language you use it an interdepent social construction
[13:54] herman Bergson: My friend.s..... there is an overload of the system here!!!!!
[13:54] oola Neruda: you sound very protected from reality TB
[13:54] TBDiscovery Harbour: I feel the same about you, oola.
[13:54] oola Neruda: smiles
[13:54] herman Bergson: Just HOLD ON plz....
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: doubt very much the silver spoon theory, oola ㋡
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:55] herman Bergson: In a 30 minutes we have dropped so many questions and observations....we have to sort this out and bring some order in it
[13:56] herman Bergson: So ..when this discussion is posted in the blog...plz reread it...so many essential remarks already
[13:56] Bruce Mowbray: sort of a metaphor for society at large...?
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: microcosm here
[13:56] herman Bergson: Well, my point is that we have to focus on one issue...
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:57] herman Bergson: and this was a brilliant kick off thanks to all your ideas and discussion
[13:57] Qwark Allen: ah
[13:57] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:57] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:57] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor!
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: ty herman
[13:58] Josiane Llewellyn: Thank you Professor
[13:58] herman Bergson: So , may I thank you for this great discussion and we'll get back to is next lecture...
[13:57] Zinzi Serevi is typing...n...
[13:58] Qwark Allen: great
[13:58] Bruce Mowbray: Thank you, prof -- and everyone.
[13:58] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: see you next time guys
[13:58] herman Bergson: And thank you TSD for your critical input...
[13:58] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Prof
[13:58] Abraxas Nagy: an galls
[13:59] TBDiscovery Harbour: Thank you for listening, Professor.
[13:59] Zinzi Serevi: bye Abrax
[13:59] Zinzi's translator: bye Abrax
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman!
[13:59] oola Neruda: yes TB
[13:59] oola Neruda: good points
[13:59] dzjengis Parx: bye all thx herman
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: bye zinzi
[13:59] Krissy Harbour: Thanks
[13:59] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye all of you
[13:59] Zinzi's translator: bye bye all of you
[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Zinzi
[13:59] herman Bergson: To me it sounds very American...
[13:59] TBDiscovery Harbour: I only wish, Professor. It's a rare view, and I hope that changes.
[14:00] herman Bergson: I liked all you said....
[14:00] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye all:-) see u thursday
[14:00] herman Bergson: doesnt mean I agreed..but you keep things sharp with your point of view
[14:00] TBDiscovery Harbour: You as well. I'll be back when I can. I usually work at this time.
[14:00] TBDiscovery Harbour: Krissy and I are off today.
[14:00] oola Neruda: nice to have your ideas TB
[14:01] herman Bergson: There is always the blog
[14:01] herman Bergson: there you can read how the story goes on...
[14:01] TBDiscovery Harbour: You as well, oola. This is a great class. I hold lectures at Thothica and Philosophy Island, but this is one of my favorite spots.
[14:01] herman Bergson: And I will take your remarks into account definitely
[14:01] TBDiscovery Harbour: Yes, I will tune in to the blog.
[14:01] oola Neruda: :-)
[14:01] TBDiscovery Harbour: Goodbye for now.
[14:02] oola Neruda: baiee baiee

246: On Liberty again

A legal system performs many social functions. Prominent among such functions is the promotion of the welfare and security of citizens and their property.

We can distinguished between laws that impose duties by which citizens must abide, and laws that provide facilities that citizens can make use of if they wish . The promotion of welfare and security involves both kinds of law.

This function at the highest level of generality may be characterized as the use of law to prevent, or to provide compensation for, harm. `Harm’ may be characterized at this level of generality as `the thwarting, setting back, or defeating of an interest’

When I run over your dog, you certainly are harmed emotionally, but should this loss as such be subject to coercive penalty?

The possession of small amounts of marijuana is a criminal offense, but in what sense does that harm others? So what justifies restriction of my freedom by law here?

Kiki referred already to it in our latest discussion, I can harm others economically pretty much. I even can put them out of business by taking over their market.

Their factories may have to close. People may loose their jobs and so on. Yet there are no laws who forbid competition in business, to do so much harm.

We may conclude that the Harm Principle as formulated by Mill is not a universally applicable rule. We are still left with the observation that not all harms are wrong. What is it that turns a harm into a wrong?

I won't pursue this issue here any further. Yet you are still stuck with this question and we'll get back to it when we will have our lecture on John Stuart Mill.

Henri-Benjamin Constant de Rebecque (1767 – 1830), a Swiss-born nobleman, thinker, writer and French politician, distinguishes between the liberty of the ancients (Greece and Rome) and the liberty of the moderns.

While the ancients called liberty the collective exercise of political sovereignty, the liberty of the moderns consists in privacy and independence.

An interesting shift in the perception of liberty. Isaiah Berlin formulated in his famous essay "Two Concepts of Liberty" (1958) a more extensive description of this modern liberty.

He differentiates negative liberty and positive liberty: negative freedom has to do with the question “What is the area within which the subject …is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons”.

On the contrary, positive liberty is related to the question “What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?”.

Berlin equates negative liberty with absence of interference (or coercion), and positive liberty with individual or collective self-direction.

Typically, self-direction accords with reasons and laws. Berlin associates negative liberty with “liberty from” and positive liberty with “liberty to”.

You'll understand.that the liberal democracy / social democracy debate could be analyzed with respect to the respective weights in the balance between negative and positive freedom.

The liberty of the moderns consists in privacy and independence, Constant said. Privacy and liberty, a really hot issue these days. Let's have a short look at it as conclusion of this lecture.

In a recent newspaper article on this subject I found an interesting description of privacy, by Boudewijn de Bruin, a Dutch university teacher of philosophy.

He says: "If anyone observes my actions, I experience these actions differently, as if I am no longer the only actor of these actions,as if a change of perspective occurs, and I myself am a spectator too."


When we feel observed by cameras in stores, by your peeping neighbor, by your credit card company, by the government, the invasion on your privacy is an invasion on your liberty.

Not only laws can invade our privacy, but also (false) rumors spread through the internet, for instance that I am actually the brother of the present Pope.

This is a lot of information on the concept of liberty. Don't feel overwhelmed. First there is our blog, where you can reread this text and a lot will reappear in our lectures on other political philosophers.


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: So take the liberty to make some remarks or ask some questions ^_^
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:22] herman Bergson: You are also free not to do so of course ㋡
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: in some cases we allow this invasion of privacy for protection
[13:22] Lena Sigall: how would you handle a situation where, no matter what choice was made, someone would be harmed in a wrong way?
[13:22] Kiki Walpanheim: "collective exercise of political sovereignty"--is that tyranny of the majority/democracy , phrased differently?
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: sothat is my liberty to sacrifice the privacy
[13:23] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say so Kiki...
[13:23] herman Bergson: the expression was coined by Mill to express his disgust of the moral oppression by Victorian culture in UK
[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...
[13:24] herman Bergson: What is interesting is Mills ideas on economics...
[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:24] herman Bergson: We'll get to that , but what we may conclude is that there is harm and harm that is wrong
[13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: defamation/incitement of violence can cause har
[13:25] Lena Sigall: how do you define wrong harm? some call masturbation "self abuse" lol
[13:25] herman Bergson: so the discussion will be to find out when and why some harm is wrong
[13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: *harm
[13:26] herman Bergson: Well LEna in MIll's opinion you may masturbate as much as you like....
[13:26] herman Bergson: It wont harm anyone...
[13:26] herman Bergson: but we are inclined to say..but it is immoral...!
[13:26] Kiki Walpanheim: lena, i think that is something about ...right to privacy
[13:26] herman Bergson: However...moral paternalism is unacceptable in Mills opinioon
[13:27] herman Bergson: He approaches harm in a strict utilitarian way
[13:27] Kiki Walpanheim nods.... in which, moral becomes relative… ach inividual could have his/her morals
[13:28] herman Bergson: But in economics I may do harm as much as I like, it seems
[13:28] herman Bergson: And this because this harm is outweighted by the Comon Good
[13:28] Lena Sigall: say for example, war. what would you do if starting the war would result in "collateral damage" to civilians, but not waging the war would allow the government or whatever force you're fighting to kill innocent people
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: masterbation along with other taboos of sexuality, reveal a lot about autonomy, morals, liberty...these issues
[13:29] herman Bergson: a difficult contraposition Lena...?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Kiki...it is also related to psychological harm....
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: yes....
[13:30] herman Bergson: For instance... doing it in public would shock / so harm people....
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: mill's harm principle seems to leave out economic harm,psychological harm.... tho they can be just as harmful or more harmful than physical one
[13:31] herman Bergson: but knowing that my neighbor does it...might be shocking too for me...but is that also called harm?
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:31] herman Bergson: anyway...as you see....a lot to study on... ^_^
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:32] herman Bergson: Just a seach on HARM PRICIPLE brings you a lot of documentation on the subject
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: hmm.... what the neighbor does, that is about privacy again..it is tricky
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, harm principle is *complicated*
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: i will look at that
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:33] herman Bergson: I think the most important debate these days is about our liberty from and our liberty to....
[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: negative/positive liberties
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes
[13:34] herman Bergson: negative is not meant to mean negative in the traditional sense
[13:34] herman Bergson: it means ..the absence of restrictions
[13:34] herman Bergson: where positive means the presence or restrictions (laws)
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:35] Lena Sigall: some say spanking is bad for kids, that it's abuse. some say *not* spanking them is bad for them because it's the only thing that teaches them discipline
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: btw, i was in debate on abortion the other day
[13:35] herman Bergson: How far may a state go to restrict its citizens by laws...that is the debate
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: that defense on abortion was based on --negative liberty
[13:35] herman Bergson: Good point Kiki...
[13:36] herman Bergson: is the state allowed to restrict the woman in her choice?
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: NO
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: that the mother 's autonomy and liberty triumphs the fetus' even if the fetus is a life, according to how that defense was made..
[13:36] herman Bergson: I answered the question by pointing at the HArm Principle...
[13:37] herman Bergson: Does an abortion harm others?
[13:37] Zinzi Serevi: maybe the father
[13:37] Zinzi's translator: Maybe The father
[13:37] herman Bergson: That is the essence... how to interpret these 'others'
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: the defense was about....does the fetus have a right to the mother's body and liberty
[13:38] herman Bergson: Ok Zinzi....
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: in comparison, do the poor have the right to the rich's money and liberty?
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: the poor who are starving to death
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki…but here we come to the point: how and when are rights established?
[13:38] Lena Sigall: do the rich have the right to feed off the poor and middle class to create their wealth?
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: when a life begins?
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: there lies the problem
[13:39] herman Bergson: And here Lena we come to the balance between negative and positive liberty
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: if abortion is keen to murderer, then perhaps we are committing murderer every single day, because
[13:39] herman Bergson: Has the state the right/authority to redistribute wealth in society by law?
[13:39] Lena Sigall: well, even if you say for arguments sake, that a fetus is a person equal to the mother,... if it lives in her body, is she forced to sustain the fetus?
[13:40] herman Bergson: That is no good argument Lena, leads to a meaningless discussion
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: because, ppl are starving to death every day, tho they can survive with the rich's money
[13:40] Lena Sigall: how so, herman?
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: that again, is about positive/negative lliberty
[13:41] herman Bergson: because the foetus is not a person
[13:41] Lena Sigall: some would argue that it is
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki...so...pure politics
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, it is controversial regarding when life begins
[13:41] Lena Sigall: some say a fertilized egg is a person
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: some argue that a fetus is a life when it has conception, tho some other would argue against it
[13:42] herman Bergson: That is a play with words...
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: no a person is a human
[13:42] herman Bergson: a Person is by definition a sentient, rational individual with an identity...an egg isnt
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: Mill emphasizes only on negative liberty throughout his book, but
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: exact;y
[13:42] herman Bergson: foetus
[13:43] Lena Sigall: so that means we can kill a person in a vegetative state?
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: AH HAHAHAHA
[13:43] herman Bergson: That is a contradiction Lena...we dont kill persons
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: but , the ground of his argument is that, ppl are educated enough to be competent for liberty---in which education becomes compulsory
[13:43] Lena Sigall: does that mean we can kill a human body that is in a vegetative state, with no sentience anymore?
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: thus it has to involve positive liberty
[13:44] herman Bergson: the vegetative patient is still a person, not just a body
[13:44] Lena Sigall: how so?
[13:44] Lena Sigall: if they have no sentience anymore
[13:44] Lena Sigall: like a fetus doesn't
[13:44] herman Bergson: It has been an individuality with a personal history and identity....
[13:45] herman Bergson: by getting into a vegetative state, that hasnt changed
[13:45] Lena Sigall: so has a dead human body... so what's the difference?
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: and they are constantly finding those people seem to have some consciousness
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: they can now see it in the brain
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: and i think the assumption is that ppl are not starving to receive education...
[13:45] herman Bergson: The person is not dead Lena....we even dont know in what state he is often..
[13:46] herman Bergson: some vegetative patients still have sensory experiences
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: vegetative patient is a person
[13:46] Lena Sigall: so the question of personal identity and sentience is important if it's present or past, but not future, like with a fetus?
[13:46] herman Bergson: You could say that, yes
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: take sl for example, there are some very offensive sims in sl
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: obscenity/indecency
[13:47] Lena Sigall: well, you say that we don't know what state a vegetative person is in often, but do we really know the fetus's state either?
[13:47] Abraxas Nagy: yay!!
[13:47] Lena Sigall: maybe it has more thoughts and perceptions than we know
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: is it justified when they are private?
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: as righ to privacy
[13:48] herman Bergson: we do know the development of the foetus, Lena...
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: *as right to privacy
[13:48] herman Bergson: Before week 22 there is no nervous system, so no sensory experience
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: if a dying man can be saved if we sacrfice one of our organs
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: is it murderer if we dont help him? by our sacrifice
[13:49] herman Bergson: That is a very difficult moral question Kiki...
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: oh goodness
[13:50] herman Bergson: Is there a moral duty to do so....?
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: it is similar with abortion
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: because the fetus asks the woman's sacrifice to survive
[13:50] herman Bergson: Like the government wants everyone to be organ donor by law...negative liberty extended
[13:50] Zinzi Serevi: pffff
[13:50] Zinzi's translator: pffff
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: sometimes the sacrifice can destroy the womans life forever, somtimes
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: wants or forces
[13:51] herman Bergson: That is the debate Gemma...between positive and negative libery here indeed
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: lol yes
[13:52] herman Bergson: SHould some one report that he wants to be a donor, or is every one donor by definition and does he have to report he does NOT want to be a donor
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: so far i only read mill's defense on liberty, which caused more confusion to me.... wish sometimes some other ways to defend could solve my confusion...
[13:52] Lena Sigall: some would say that the woman chose to have sex, assuming it was consensual, therefore she chose the possibility of pregnancy and so it's not fair to destroy the fetus
[13:52] herman Bergson: that is a discussion in Dutch politics for instance...
[13:52] Zinzi Serevi: omg Lena
[13:52] Zinzi's translator: omg Lena
[13:53] Lena Sigall: i'm not saying that
[13:53] Lena Sigall: in case it seems i'm against abortion rights, i'm not. i'm very much in favor of the right
[13:53] herman Bergson: You should have read my note Lena ^_^
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: how about rape? how about failures in contraception
[13:53] herman Bergson: It is an absurd argument...
[13:53] Personal Core: hello ladies, hello gents
[13:53] Lena Sigall: i did herman, i just wanted the others' opinions too
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: hi personal :)
[13:53] herman Bergson: it means that when you choose for something then you have no right to interfere with the consequences…
[13:54] Lena Sigall: you gave the example of choosing to climb a tree, and then falling out of it
[13:54] Personal Core: sorry that i enter , but i saw this place, and i said , why not
[13:54] Lena Sigall: out*
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: even in a contract, ppl have the right to terminate it at proper times
[13:54] herman Bergson: Come in Personal..
[13:54] herman Bergson: you are welcome
[13:54] Personal Core: and also i saw the title philosopher ,
[13:54] Personal Core: thanky u
[13:54] Lena Sigall: but getting treatment for a broken leg is harmless. however some would argue killing the fetus does cause harm to it, which isn't fair if the woman knowingly engaged in what she knew could cause the pregnancy
[13:55] herman Bergson: We have been through that...
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: does the woman have the right to withdraw using her body?
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: even if she started it consensually
[13:55] Lena Sigall: yes
[13:56] herman Bergson: Let's return to the donor issue...
[13:56] Lena Sigall: ok
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: almost time to go :-)
[13:56] herman Bergson: it is a perfect example of the balance between negative and positive liberty...
[13:56] herman Bergson: Indeed Gemma..
[13:57] Personal Core: not always, depends if u know how to define the balance
[13:57] Personal Core: ,,, a small idea, sorry for interrupting
[13:57] herman Bergson: The question is...has the state the right to claim your bodyparts by law
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:57] Personal Core: nope
[13:57] Personal Core: after all the state didnt rise u
[13:57] Zinzi Serevi: yes when you have an escape
[13:57] Zinzi's translator: yes When You Have an escape
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: is it about donor after death?
[13:58] Zinzi Serevi: yes
[13:58] Zinzi's translator: yes
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: well the state is supposed to represent us so i say unless we give them the right they do not have it
[13:58] Personal Core: or help u to grow ,or participate in any way at your growing
[13:58] herman Bergson: so you can not accept a law that regards every citizen a donor by definition UNLESSS the citizen has explicitely stated that he does NOT want to be a donor
[13:58] Personal Core: or the family,
[13:58] Kiki Walpanheim: it is difficult.. i think each one owns herself/himself
[13:58] Kiki Walpanheim: but
[13:59] Kiki Walpanheim: hmm....
[13:59] Personal Core: can i put a hypottetical question ?
[13:59] herman Bergson: This is what we not yet touched on Kiki....natural laws...
[13:59] herman Bergson: the right to the integrity of your boy
[13:59] herman Bergson: the right to live..
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday everyone ...
[13:59] herman Bergson: etc
[13:59] Lena Sigall: bye Gemma
[13:59] CONNIE Eichel: bye gemma :)
[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Gemma ㋡
[14:00] Lena Sigall: but if one doesn't donate their organ, some will not live. is that a violation of their right to live?
[14:00] Kiki Walpanheim: bye gemma
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: bye Gemma
[14:00] Personal Core: image that u are sick , the state dont garantate the healing or help without the money , and how come the state use the organs, ? this is an real case that is happened everywhere
[14:00] Sartre Placebo: night
[14:00] Personal Core: good night
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: night
[14:00] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say so...
[14:00] Personal Core: but is happened,
[14:01] herman Bergson: does falling ill give you the right to claim other man's body parts?
[14:01] herman Bergson: because you have a right to live too
[14:01] Zinzi Serevi: bye Gemma
[14:01] Zinzi's translator: bye Gemma
[14:01] Kiki Walpanheim: which means, the state does not give u much yet asks you for too much
[14:01] Personal Core: the hypothetical question is , ...is right to use the organs and to private the sick ppl to heal or not
[14:01] herman Bergson: I think...we are exhausting people here.....
[14:01] herman Bergson: Time to terminate the discussion ㋡
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: I have to go.. see you all nexttime :D
[14:02] Lena Sigall: LOL
[14:02] Lena Sigall: bye Abraxas
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: and ty herman
[14:02] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^

245: On Liberty

One of the central concerns of social and political philosophy has been the issue of what limits, if any, there are to the right of the state to restrict the “liberty” of its citizens.

Unless one is convinced of the truth of anarchism, there are some actions with which the state may legitimately interfere, and unless one accords no value to personal liberty, there are some actions the state must leave to the discretion
of the individual.

One of the best defenders of liberty was John Stuart Mill with his book "On Liberty" (1859), written during the reign of Queen Victoria (1837 - 1901), a period of moral paternalism.

A period of what he called "tyranny of the majority", wherein through control of etiquette and morality, society is an unelected power that can do horrific things.

Mill's On Liberty addresses the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. One argument that Mill develops further than any previous philosopher is the harm principle.

The only reason that could justify the use of coercion against a person is to prevent harm to other people. And for preventing this we call 911, in other words such actions come within the scope of legitimate state power.

Other reasons, according to Mill, do not justify legal coercion. One cannot restrict someone’s actions because they are harmful to that person; paternalism is not legitimate.

One cannot restrict someone’s actions because they are wrong or immoral (but not harmful to others); legal moralism is not legitimate.

One cannot restrict someone’s actions because his or her character would be improved by doing so; moral paternalism is not legitimate.

This all might be true, but it shifts the discussion from liberty to the concept of harm. When do we harm others? Is it only about physical harm or also psychological harm?

Joel Feinberg (October 19, 1926 - March 29, 2004) , an American political and social philosopher, known for his work in the fields of individual rights and the authority of the state, argues that any notion of harm that is going to play a role in answering normative questions will itself be normative in character.

The normative issue raised by paternalism is when, if ever, the state or an individual is entitled to interfere with a person for that person’s good. Motorcyclists are obliged by law to wear helmets. We have to comply to all traffic signs and obey their 'orders'.

How far may the state go? Again the fierce debates in the US about National Health Care are a textbook example. It is for your own good and for the good of the nation, that you don't perish because you are killed by doctor bills.

But there is more. The state can do more and that next step is often the cause of nationwide debates, demonstrations and so on. The issue is whether the state may enforce morality?

It is present in discussions of the legalization of homosexuality, pornography, surrogate motherhood, and active euthanasia. The focus of such discussion is not the harm of such activities but their immorality and whether if they are immoral that is sufficient reason for the state to proscribe them.

According to Thomas Hobbes "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do." And Mills added "as long as he doesn't harm others". His motivations were pure utilitarian.

There are other approaches possible of the problem of Liberty. For that we still have a number of political philosophers in store .



The Discussion

[13:25] herman Bergson: Somuch on Liberty today
[13:25] herman Bergson: Feel free to ask questions and make remarks
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: A virtue ethicist would say that liberty is the freedom to be good, true to our deep nature?
[13:27] herman Bergson: you are free not to make remarks too of course…it is your liberty ㋡
[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Repose, what I just told is the true liberal point of view, developed by Mill
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:28] herman Bergson: there are other views of course...
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: What the F*CK?~!
[13:28] Zinzi's translator: The discussion in the Netherlands on TBS there who wants to watch porn is a good example of a moral government, I think
[13:28] herman Bergson: for instance when you value society more than the individual, you get another story...look at socialism for instance
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: is Mill a socialist as well as a libertarian?
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: we have these discussions in the WSA constantly about freedoms and law
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes....to explain TBS....
[13:29] herman Bergson: Convicts are convicts to psychological treatment in the netherlands, when they are diagnosed are mentally ill
[13:30] herman Bergson: and sexual offenders among them are allowed to watch porn movies in their cells
[13:30] herman Bergson: there is an upheaval about that now...
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: i bet!!!!
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: no porn for the scorn.. so to speak
[13:31] herman Bergson: is it their liberty to do so, or has the state the right to restrict their liberty?
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: hard for a society to decide these issues just on the merits...
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: well they are already restricted to the prison lol
[13:31] Zinzi's translator: well child porn is illegal
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: quote from wikipedia -- Later he(Mill) altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his Principles of Political Economy in defense of a socialist outlook,
[13:31] Zinzi's translator: but not grown up porn
[13:32] herman Bergson: Very good Kiki....
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: interesting, Kiki
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm
[13:32] herman Bergson: John Stuart Mill is on our list of course....we keep this remark of yours in mind
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe individuality/freedom of speech, faith etc.. are different from the economic aspect?
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: i think many people bounce between the socialist and then to teh very consevative views and back again
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes...that may be true Gemma
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yes, Hippies for Reagan ㋡
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:34] Zinzi Serevi: lol
[13:34] Zinzi's translator: lol
[13:34] herman Bergson: But it is interesting to ask if both sides agree on freedom of speech for instance and freedom of faith
[13:35] herman Bergson: If you would agree on that and say that for instance in the economic aspect they dont agree, you see real politics come to life
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe individualism needs some ground...like basic resource for survival, a shelter, basic education before each individual could embrace that liberty?
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:36] herman Bergson: Education...another good example....
[13:36] herman Bergson: we force our children by law to attend school
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: so Mill's socialist preference might just goes naturally with liberty...
[13:36] Qwark Allen: better then force them to work
[13:37] herman Bergson: indeed Qwark...
[13:37] Guz Rowlands: lol u r when u get 18
[13:37] Guz Rowlands: first force is to learn second to work
[13:37] Guz Rowlands: we all born as number not our choice but we r
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: Mill also wrote things like..... barbarians are not fit for liberty and only the civilized are eligible for it
[13:38] herman Bergson: In the Social Contract view, we stay free when we agree on restrictions on our freedom
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: wonders if this is correct....
[13:38] herman Bergson: so, for instance ..compulsory education is a generally agreed on issue...
[13:38] herman Bergson: and as such not an restriction of our liberty
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: yes, even in the USA it is not controversial
[13:39] herman Bergson: So the real politics is where are the limits of the state in creating these restrictions...how far can it go
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: necessary for society
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: of course it is the restriction of the liberty of children
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: nods at herman. Hobbes' social contract covered last week, the social contract seems to help ensuring liberty. So he contributes to liberty tho he has a predilection for authoritarianism
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: hmmm...
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki...the social contract creates sovereignty and authority
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: i think education is compulsory because it is the ground for liberty--only those educated are more competent to be responsible for themselves
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: interesting
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: well children need to be restricted repose lol
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: omg
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: Mill defended liberty by emphasizing on the importance of education
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: but would it be right then to restrict the liberty of the ignorant adult?
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: and adults not?
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yes, children are a special case
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: darn chatlag
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: not restrict but offer a way out of the ignorance
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: but, sometimes health care, resource for survival, and a shelter are more fundemental for ppl to embrace education....
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: or a different matter anyway than adults
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: My remark was lost...
[13:44] herman Bergson: in chatlag...
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: it happens
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: it sure does today
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: for me personally that is why the issue of libery if very much confusing, and i am very interested
[13:44] herman Bergson: very annoying
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: very
[13:45] herman Bergson: It is one of the fundamental aspects of political philosophy Kiki
[13:45] herman Bergson: How far may a state go in restriction the liberty of the individual
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: i see.... i have a ton of confusion apart from that...on liberty alone
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: no farther than necessary for the common good ㋡
[13:46] herman Bergson: well..it is a scale from extreme liberalism to absolute egalitarianisn or socialism
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: like, the floor and ceilings of free speech....
[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Repose...the common good...but what is that
[13:47] herman Bergson: A government can hide behind the Common Good argument
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes, i see it ㋡
[13:47] Qwark Allen: lots did it
[13:47] herman Bergson: then you get the tyranny of the common good
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: fraud and lies are not tolerated, but when they are in the most vicious forms they are tolerated
[13:48] herman Bergson: that was what Mill was so against in that Victorian era
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: which are---ethics, religions, political ideologies
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:49] herman Bergson: what do you mean Kiki?
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: defining the common good is always a fight
[13:49] herman Bergson: yes Repose
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: a fight to expand our hearts
[13:49] herman Bergson: again...the liberals against the moralists in this case
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: or constrict them
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: e.g. lie to make money is not allowed.....but performing sorcery only to make money even if the performer does not believe in the religion, is ok
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well I think we made a good start with the historical moment of the Social Contract theory...
[13:51] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:51] Qwark Allen: thank you herrman
[13:51] herman Bergson: Hobbes made us free humans
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: hope i remember it all till April 13
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: and the boundary between sedition, incitement to violence, and ideas that motivate crimes ..is obscure
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: Hard as that is to beleive...
[13:51] Qwark Allen: or at least the thought that we could not be
[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: ideas that motivate crimes is no crime
[13:52] herman Bergson: And regarding your remark Kiki...that is an issue in itself ㋡
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: not yet anyway
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...
[13:53] herman Bergson: You dont need to Gemma
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:54] herman Bergson: http://thephilosophyclass.blogspot.com
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: yes i know that
[13:54] herman Bergson: theblog gemma ㋡
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: yes i think Hobbes idea free us from constant fear-defense-fear, which is a vicous circle, so it frees us humans
[13:54] Guz Rowlands: bye bye all i need to go for minute
[13:54] Qwark Allen: see you soon
[13:54] Guz Rowlands: TC
[13:54] Guz Rowlands: c u next time:p
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ty herrmman, interesting as usual
[13:54] herman Bergson: Ok...thank you all for participating today
[13:54] Zinzi Serevi: bye Guz
[13:54] Zinzi's translator: bye Guz
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: have a nice break
[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: and all
[13:55] herman Bergson: See you all in a week
[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye qwaek&gemmaaa :-))
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: bye
[13:55] Zinzi Serevi: have a good time Herman
[13:55] Zinzi's translator: Have A Good Time Herman
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: c ya herman and thanks
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: Mhh *Kiss* Bye bye!
[13:55] herman Bergson: thnx all ㋡
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: What the F*CK?~!
[13:56] Sartre Placebo: good night, thx herman
[13:56] herman Bergson: what got into you Abraxas?
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: what is it Abrax?
[13:56] Zinzi's translator: what is it Abrax?
[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: oww he left already..lol
[13:56] Zinzi's translator: OWW Already he left .. lol
[13:57] herman Bergson: something is wrong in SL
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: have a nice break. see you
[13:57] herman Bergson: ok...thnx Kiki
[13:57] Zinzi Serevi: yes it is
[13:57] herman Bergson: very annoying
[13:57] Zinzi's translator: yes it is
[13:58] Repose Lionheart: bye ㋡
[13:58] herman Bergson: Nice outfit Repose
[[13:58] Repose Lionheart: thanks, Prof ㋡
[13:58] Zinzi Serevi: bye
[13:58] herman Bergson: Bye Zinzi

238: on Democracy

Not only the word 'politics' but also the word 'democracy' we inherited from the Greek. Democracy comes from 'demos' ( the people) and 'kratos' the power. An what we easily take for granted is, that we live in a democracy.

Even stronger, we are convinced that we OUGHT to organize our society in a democratic way. We even send other people, who have no experience with democracy at all to vote, like happens in Iraq, because voting is one of the cornerstones of democracy.

In fact we use a normative theory of democracy, which obliges us to explain when and why democracy is morally desirable as well as moral principles for guiding the design of democratic institutions.

We could define democracy as a method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making.

And then we can ask the question: Is this morally desirable? Some say ye only in a highly formal way in which citizens vote in an electoral process for the purpose of selecting competing elites.

Others, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1672) pleads for a robustly egalitarian democracy. There are also those, who claim, that democracy is not desirable at all. So, if we plead for democracy, how do we justify democracy?

in his " Considerations on Representative Government" (1861) John Stuart Mill has three arguments for democracy: strategically, epistemically and via the improvement of the characters of democratic citizens. The last one resembling the old Greek idea.

Strategically, democracy has an advantage because it forces decision-makers to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of most people in society.

Epistemologically, democracy is thought to be the best decision-making method on the grounds that it is generally more reliable in helping participants discover the right decisions.

Some have argued that democratic processes tend to enhance the autonomy, rationality and morality of participants. Since these beneficial effects are thought to be worthwhile in themselves, they count in favor of democracy and against other forms of rule.

Plato, however, wasn't such a supporter of this kind of democracy at all. To him was democracy inferior to various forms of monarchy or oligarchy. A society should be ruled by experts, not by people who are only smart enough to win an election.

Modern arguments against democracy are that citizens are not informed about politics and that they are often apathetic, which makes room for special interests to control the behavior of politicians and use the state for their own limited purposes all the while spreading the costs to everyone else.

Some say that we should vote for a nation healthcare system, others say that we shouldn't vote on that. Everybody should be free to choose. Leave society to the market. Such a system could produce serious economic inefficiencies.

However, from a utilitarian point of view you could point at the effects of democracy, the maximizing of general wellbeing. For instance, there never has been a famine in democratically governed countries and there is a relatively free press.

From a virtue ethical point of view you could argue that democracy is intrinsically fair and stimulates fairness, justice, rationality and equality in its citizens.

Is it all so clear and obvious? Then take this argument: What if people disagree on the democratic method or on the particular form democracy is to take? Are we to decide these latter questions by means of a higher order procedure?

And if there is disagreement on the higher order procedure, must we also democratically decide that question? The view seems to lead to an infinite regress.

Or if personal liberty is a value how does it get along with a democratic decision-making. Do we live under the dictatorship of the majority?

Plato (Republic, Book VI) argued that some people are more intelligent and more moral than others and that those persons ought to rule. What to do when a mediocre person succeeds in becoming president via democratic elections?

Isn't all this fascinating?! At least one thing democracy brings us: we are free to discuss all these issues.


The Discussion

[13:18] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:19] herman Bergson: So much on Democracy ㋡
[13:20] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks, plz feel free
[13:20] herman Bergson: We could vote on arguments ㋡
[13:20] Repose Lionheart: As Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:21] herman Bergson: Well what about the dictatorship of the majority?
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: well that is a problem too
[13:21] Esteban Cifuentes: what to do when the feeble-minded succeed in accessing to power? vote them out at the following election. If you do not, you have the leadership you deserve, which is Democracy at its purest
[13:21] Laila Schuman: i believe it has become the dictatorship of the rich..who manipulate the opinions of the masses
[13:22] herman Bergson: Why has the majority authority over others?
[13:22] Repose Lionheart: slowly, democracies have protected minority opinion more fully
[13:22] Esteban Cifuentes: that is, assuming the democratic process itself is pure and not flawed, ensuring free and fair elections
[13:22] Laila Schuman: freedom of the press has eroded enormously... and various monopolies own much of the media
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: that is so true
[13:23] herman Bergson: I dont know Laila...
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: here they do
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: oligarchy is the downside of any republic
[13:23] Esteban Cifuentes: where is here?
[13:23] herman Bergson: And you are right Esteban....
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: USA'
[13:23] herman Bergson: One thing the greek were extremely afraid of was factions in a city state
[13:24] herman Bergson: speical groups that go only for their own interests
[13:24] Laila Schuman: yes
[13:24] herman Bergson: which would lead to civil war
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: modern democracies channel factionist tedencies with political parties
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: think our democracies work better than the ancient versions
[13:25] herman Bergson: You could say so Repose...
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: still can produce virtue, but manage contending forces better
[13:25] herman Bergson: Now waht when someone refuses to obey a democratic decision?
[13:26] herman Bergson: A majority decision....why should he feel obliged?
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: because he conceeded to the social contract initially
[13:27] Esteban Cifuentes: then that person is in breach of civil government, and should be punished/restrained from doing so for the good of society as a whole, otherwise anarchy takes root
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: has a moral duty
[13:27] herman Bergson: ok two arguments... voting is joining a social contract and two: moral duty
[13:28] herman Bergson: I found another interesting argument...
[13:28] Willful Guardian: we don't necessarily say someone has a moral duty
[13:28] Willful Guardian: although there c an be consequences
[13:28] Willful Guardian: for not obeying a law
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Willful
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: social ethical duty then
[13:28] herman Bergson: It is a matter of ethics
[13:29] Esteban Cifuentes: should voting be compulsory? and should not voting (in itself an expression of choice) be punished?
[13:29] herman Bergson: Do we have to obey duties
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: NO!
[13:29] herman Bergson: We had compulsory voting in the Netherlands Esteban, but it was dropped many years ago
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: good question
[13:30] Willful Guardian: perhaps there is some duty of respecting fair laws, but there's no duty to act according unfair laws,
[13:30] Esteban Cifuentes: some democratic countries have compulsory voting to ensure participation
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: true!
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: but...
[13:30] Willful Guardian: perhaps there some duty to respect some degree of social order
[13:30] herman Bergson: yes Willful...
[13:30] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:30] herman Bergson: an argument is that a state has authority to the extend that its laws and actions are morally good
[13:31] herman Bergson: That is one of the motivations to accept the authority of the state
[13:31] herman Bergson: An other is a purely consequentialist point of view of course
[13:32] herman Bergson: But about ignoring a democratic decision....
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: I would like more people to vote but do not think is should be compulsory
[13:32] Bubblesort Triskaidekaphobia: so... in the netherlands people voted to not vote? interesting, lol
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:32] herman Bergson: There is the Condorcet Jury theorem....
[13:33] Esteban Cifuentes: what if the society and government passing and enforcing those rules and laws are morally bankrupt? how do you defy the authority of the state withing the legal framework? Does that justify civil disobedience/rebellion?
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Bubble.. our parlement voted for the freedom not to vote ㋡
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: Yes, is justifies rebellion, I think, Esteban.
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well Esteban...good point... I think it leads to civil disobedience and protests and maybe even more when a governments actions are clearly immoral
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: And disobedience
[13:34] herman Bergson: For Aristotle politics and ethics were closely linked
[13:35] herman Bergson: Plato saw justice as the base of a good state
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: But finally it comes down to a combination of moral suasion and raw power, maybe
[13:35] herman Bergson: So democracy is in fact also a moral issue
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: But...
[13:36] herman Bergson: refusing to obey the majority in fact creates inequality
[13:36] herman Bergson: where equality is one of the main issues of democracy
[13:36] herman Bergson: If you disobey the majority decision you in fact call them inferior to you
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: true too
[13:37] herman Bergson: And you should have good arguments to proof your superiority
[13:38] herman Bergson: The idea of majority vote is described by the Condorcet Jury Theorem
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: Well, the moral complexity of democracy reflects the complexity of our moral lives more fully than any other form of governance
[13:38] herman Bergson: not without critic s but interesting
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: this is an argument for it
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: truest to our lived experience and our hearts
[13:39] herman Bergson: It states that when we know an answer to a question, have arguments for an opinion where people disagree
[13:39] herman Bergson: it is more probable that the majority votes for the right answer
[13:39] herman Bergson: The larger the number of voters the higher the probability that we choose the right answer
[13:40] herman Bergson: BUt I have my doubts about this....
[13:40] Laila Schuman: the electoral system and frequent local redistricting of voting districts... calls into question... what does that mean...majority
[13:40] Bubblesort Triskaidekaphobia: they published a few books on that idea a couple years ago about web 2.0... the wisdom of the markets and things like that
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: the problem Professor is that there can be exceptions to the rule and you can't tell in advance which are the excpections
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: Hitler was elected by a plurality of voters
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: not a wise decision
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Repose, and the rule applies only when no one has special interests in the possible answers
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: hmmm...
[13:42] Bubblesort Triskaidekaphobia: oh, well if that's how hitler rose to power then democracy must be an evil nazi plot... down with democracy! :)
[13:42] Laila Schuman: who forms popular opinion... all too often, it is clever propaganda... as a journalist i am trained in propaganda
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes..That is why I had my doubts Repose..that crossed my mind
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: no, democracy is just not perfect ㋡
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Laila, that is another problem in our information age...
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:42] herman Bergson: The greek only had their city....difficult to lie about events there
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:43] herman Bergson: Now we have the whole world as a source
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: but media bring us ever closer together, too
[13:43] herman Bergson: and all kinds of special interests groups
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: and so quicklly too
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: look at us now ㋡
[13:44] Laila Schuman: and those who can afford the "air time" ...often in very unobserved ways
[13:44] herman Bergson: I think information and manipulate disinformation(propaganda) balances each other out perhaps
[13:45] Laila Schuman: if both sides have equal intelligence and equal access
[13:45] herman Bergson: I think that is the case, Laila
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: :(
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: here is the US, the disinformation has had a bigger impact on the electorate than the information for some time now
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: seems that way
[13:45] Laila Schuman: i agree Repose
[13:46] herman Bergson: But in the end...where does it lead to?
[13:46] Laila Schuman: when prejudices are preyed upon...for example
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: maybe a smarter electorate
[13:46] herman Bergson: If a small group seizes power they will make laws that only favor that group
[13:46] Esteban Cifuentes: and the simplest way in which Hitler's rise can be explained is a mixture of fear and resentment monguering, and abuse of the democratic process through intimidation, violence and underestimating the possible outcome... in essence, it was a progressive and peaceful coup d'etat endorsed and supported by part of the voting population and indifference
[13:47] Laila Schuman: yes
[13:47] Laila Schuman: and creating scapegoats
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes, Estaban
[13:47] Willful Guardian: but plato's argument that experts can make better decisions still has some weight
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:47] Willful Guardian: it depends a great deal on the intentions of the small group
[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Wellful
[13:48] Laila Schuman: what do you call a lawyer run amuck................................ senator
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:48] Willful Guardian: all I can say, Laila is that no one likes lawyers, until t hey need one
[13:48] herman Bergson: but it shows that you cant really handle political affairs with an educational level as kindergarten
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:49] herman Bergson: In fact we have departments stuffed with experts to support a minister/secretary in office
[13:49] herman Bergson: So maybe we have a mix of oligarchy and democracy
[13:49] Willful Guardian: probably assistants, aides and clerks do much of the actual work of governing
[13:50] herman Bergson: like Aristotle prefered
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: and experts are as vulnerable to the corruption of power as anyone else
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: they do yes
[13:50] Laila Schuman: yes
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well... I think we have seen a lot of interesting thoughts about democracy....
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: yes!
[13:51] herman Bergson: we'll see how the Middle Ages will deal with those ideas
[13:51] herman Bergson: May I thank you for this good discussion and your participation ㋡
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: Thanks, Profesor. Very thought-provoking!
[13:51] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: thank you professor
[13:51] Bubblesort Triskaidekaphobia: great lecture!
[13:51] Willful Guardian: yes, thanks herman
[13:52] herman Bergson: Thank you all
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: remember to check sl time on tuesday
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: every time change is a riot