255: The Ways of Liberalism 2

Society is a group of people, where everybody is born with his or her own set of skills. These skills are used to gain an income. The more skillful you are the higher your income can become.

Everybody is absolutely free to do with his income as he pleases. Any attempt to order the individual to spend his money on well defined targets is an infringement on personal freedom.

This means that every institution in society should be contract based. Those who pay for it, will benefit from it. Nobody is obliged to pay. Such an obligation is regarded as TAKING money from a free person and spending it against his will on issues he doesn't agree to.

A free market helps to select those who are good at different enterprises and those who are not. Any attempt to interfere with this process will disrupt the market.

From my Ayn Rand lecture"
"3.Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4.The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism."

You find the Ayn Rand Lectures under May 2009, nr. 17a and 17b. Watch out, 17b also contains the more important ones 17c and 17d.

I think that this comes close to the views of TDDiscovery (participated in the discussion of the former lecture [254]), or at least he will agree with it. This is absolute liberalism. Maybe it is even a stronger version of liberalism: Libertarianism.

The origin of libertarianism is interesting, as it is inspired by the ideas of Bernard Mandeville, born in the Netherlands, Rotterdam in 1670, but most of his life he lived in England where he died in 1733.

Mandeville arrives at a very contemporaneously vile conclusion: vice as a necessary condition for economic prosperity. His viewpoint is more severe when juxtaposed to Adam Smith's.

Both Smith and Mandeville believed that individuals’ collective actions bring about a public benefit . However, what sets his philosophy apart from Smith’s is his catalyst to that public benefit.

Smith believed in a virtuous self-interest which results in invisible cooperation. For the most part, Smith saw no need for a guide to garner that public benefit.

On the other hand, Mandeville believed it was vicious greed which led to invisible cooperation if properly channeled.

Mandeville’s qualification of proper channeling further parts his philosophy from Smith’s laissez-faire attitude. Essentially, Mandeville called for politicians to ensure that the passions of man would result in a public benefit.

It was his stated belief in his book " Fable of the Bees" that "Private Vices by the dextrous Management of a skilful Politician may be turned into Publick Benefits”
Mandeville has nice examples to underpin his point of view that "private vices are public benefits." A libertine, for example, is a vicious character, and yet his spending will employ tailors, servants, perfumers, cooks, and prostitutes

Well, like the communist system has collapsed as a not working model of a society, also Mandeville's idea that greed leads to public benefits doesn't seem to make it. Our present crisis seems to demonstrates that.

So we have to continue our quest to gain moor insight in Liberalism. Is it a working model for society or not and in what way. At least we have to prevent that the world turns into a Tea Party…..


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: The reference to the Tea Party may not be understood by everyone ㋡
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: omg yes
[13:22] herman Bergson: But the Tea Party is a very strong ultra libertarian movement in the US today
[13:22] herman Bergson: Gemma understands...I expected that
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:22] Kiki Walpanheim is googling tea party
[13:22] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:23] herman Bergson: The Movement is more Republican than all Republicans together
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: hmm checking too
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: yes it is and with no real leadership
[13:23] herman Bergson: and I have a feeling it is in its ideology appealing to Mandeville's truth: greed
[13:23] herman Bergson: and self-interest
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: aaa ok now i get it
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:24] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks..plz feel free ㋡
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: well, stupidity too...hope politicians can channel stupidity toward good ㋡
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: oh gosh i doubt it
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: so do i ㋡
[13:25] herman Bergson: Well stupidity is an improper word,Repose...
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: ignorance, maybe
[13:25] herman Bergson: It obscures the true reasons of this kind of political behavior
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: one winning candidate backed by the tea "party" has already put his foot so far down his throat yesterday he may not be able to get it out!
[13:25] herman Bergson: No...you have to ask for the motives of this behavior
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: i see
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: tried to take apart the civil rights law of the land
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: in some words
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: sometime i feel that politicans and organisations like those just read the rules and act like a computer on them with no feelings or own logic thinking
[13:26] herman Bergson: What does that mean Gemma?
[13:26] Kiki Walpanheim: but when everyone is acting on the self interest only...it is not always beneficial to the society as a whole...
[13:27] herman Bergson: In my lecture on Rand I already analyzed the concept of self-interest...
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: he stated that if he were around at the time of passage, there would have been a discussion on where it should apply to private businesses
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: one of the saddest examples here is the immigration society, they sometime send back people to a certain death or torture because " there are no circumstances in the rules that say they can stay"
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: make me really sad
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: should the government prohibit private business from keeping certian people put of the place
[13:28] herman Bergson: Well clear libertarianism in that Tea PArty movement then I guess
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: we will see how far it goes
[13:29] herman Bergson: But about self - interest....
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: yes, there is, i think
[13:29] herman Bergson: It is a word and seems to describe a property of the human being
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: it's about whether motives define morals, ,or consequence defines it
[13:29] herman Bergson: However...what does it denotes...?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well...you point at behavior...ok....but behavior includes motives
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: libertarians have a very narrow understanding of "self-interest"
[13:30] herman Bergson: yes Repose....so you have to look for the motives of behavior
[13:31] herman Bergson: and then the word self - interest becomes void...
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: they usually buy into the romanticism of hyper-individualisism
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: never really thought of that as the basic motive
[13:31] Kiki Walpanheim: self-interest might not be moral based on the intent, but based on the consequence, could be
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes ㋡
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: now i can see it lolol
[13:31] herman Bergson: for there is no such quality like self interest in humans
[13:31] herman Bergson: there are motives for actions...
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes, i see
[13:32] herman Bergson: so to understand what it is all about we have to bring these motives to the surface and discuss these motives
[13:33] herman Bergson: Then we are talking politics
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: hmmm....
[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim whispers: on how self interest is restrained and guided?
[13:33] herman Bergson: One of the motives was greed....Mandeville believed it would lead to public benefit when channeled properly
[13:34] herman Bergson: It makes no sense to discuss something like self-interest...
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hmm that can never lead to something good
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: as u said before thats what we see today
[13:35] herman Bergson: So it did...Bejiita..
[13:35] herman Bergson: The financial crisis is motivated only by greed....
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: just a synonym for greed...
[13:35] herman Bergson: maximizing the profits....for what good?
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: not a social good..that is clear
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: well, when the powerful are greedy, they are able to corrupt the system for their own benefit
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: very
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: and in greece today, and Dubai, think they just can use money like water with no thought at all and look what have happened
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: totally crashed the economy now
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes REpose...but how much sense does it make?
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: in game theory, as in the case of prisoner's dilemma, it could lead to problems collectively...
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: libertarianism does not take such human frailty into sufficient account, i think
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: oh...sense
[13:36] herman Bergson: No..it doesnt....
[13:36] herman Bergson: But what I dont understand....
[13:37] herman Bergson: You get a bonus of 10 million dollar...
[13:37] herman Bergson: the next year another one...
[13:37] herman Bergson: what to do with all that money?
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: regardless of performance
[13:37] herman Bergson: Even that Gemma yes
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: ahhhh...maybe greed, and vice more generally, introduce irrationalities into the system
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hmm yes they want more and more even they cant make use of it
[13:38] herman Bergson: Why are people so attacted by huge sums of money...
[13:38] herman Bergson: You havent the lifetime to spend it all for instance
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: the irrationalities undercut those like Mandeville who are ethically attempting to square the circle
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: i use top say money is worhless untill u buy something good for it
[13:38] herman Bergson: Bill Gates is giving away lots of his billions to charity purposes…
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: oh he is great at giving money
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: and the worth is in that thing cause that is useable for something while money is just money
[13:39] herman Bergson: yes...but the amount he posses is so absurd Gemma
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: I know and so does he
[13:39] herman Bergson: Property and the free accumulation of property...that is what our society approves
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: too much money in few hands and the others can barley afford food for the day
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: his foundation gets MOST of it
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: thats not right
[13:40] herman Bergson: But I think ..at a given moment you pass the limit of rationality...
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: I agree
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:40] Zinzi Serevi: yes
[13:40] Zinzi's translator: yes
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: that is why there is a huge oligarchy emerging here in the USA
[13:40] herman Bergson: That is what all these financial guys lack...rationality...which leads to ethics
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: most do not give
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: but that shows the system is not simply rational
[13:41] herman Bergson: It is not , indeed Repose...
[13:41] herman Bergson: That is the weak point of liberalism....
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: the libertarian flaw is just there
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: in cases of public goods, natural monopoly, environment......free market might not work that well
[13:41] herman Bergson: it presuposes a rational being, but the financial world shows proven irrational behavior
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yesss
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:42] herman Bergson: No Kiki.....you are right....
[13:42] herman Bergson: What we have to find out is what is the public good
[13:42] herman Bergson: and how does it relate to private property
[13:43] herman Bergson: and what is the right balance between the two
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: like...public roads.. which benefit ppl in a society as a whole
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, and not at all sure...
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: agree Kiki
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: electricity, water supply....
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes..and these public roads..they offer individuals private property...
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: which is...built once in a large scale, then used for a long time
[13:44] herman Bergson: the trucking company which makes profits by using these roads
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: hmm one example of that is a power company we have here in sweden called Vattenfall ( Waterfall)
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: the bosses take bonus after bonus and give the consumers horrible bills to pay for those bonuses
[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes...so our reseauch goes on....to define the public good....
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:45] herman Bergson: and bonus for what Nejiita?
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: also we have a strange system where the price is set after tle most expensive power which means that of one single coal plant wich is most expensive and have high environmental tax
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: and problems environment generally dont effect the firms' benefits unless they are more or less regulated
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: then it dont matter if we have 1000 hydrolants with cheap power running, the price is set after that last coal plant and also go to the bosses pockets
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: at least as i understand it
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: sounds familiar
[13:47] herman Bergson: I know that system Bejiita...here the price of electricity is connected to the price of oil I think
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: no good thing
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: also in the case of health insurance....i am still not sure if it is wise if it is entirely private..regarding adverse selection..
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: factories that produce base stuff like paper steel and so have to close because of that
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: all very interesting...high prices though assure conservation
[13:48] herman Bergson: no...absurd because the power plants use cola of gas
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: and energy efficiency
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: that need lot of power but make stuff that are absolute neccesaru for society to function
[13:48] herman Bergson: coal...I mean...the employees use cola
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:49] herman Bergson: powerd by cola
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: hehye
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: damn now u got me thirsty
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:49] herman Bergson: Well I think it is clear that extreme liberalism doesnt work and that private vices dont lead to public benefits
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: more Tuesday?
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:51] herman Bergson: Oh yes Gemma....we still have a long and winding road ahead...
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: yay
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: i guess lol
[13:51] herman Bergson: that may lead to your door...but that is another story ㋡
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: this was some good stuff for sure
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: i used to think intentions determines if something is moral.....
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: yep it always is m8
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: this is precisley those things im mad about every time i open a newspaper
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: now i got to vent that a bit
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: same here
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:52] herman Bergson: I understand Bejiita...
[13:52] herman Bergson: Me too
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: I better not start
[13:52] herman Bergson: Exactly Abraxas...
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: and look for something better
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:53] herman Bergson: But we will continue our quest into the realms of Liberalism....
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm human nature plays a role
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: aah
[13:53] herman Bergson: So thank you for you great disussion again
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: Thank you professor and all
[13:53] Zinzi Serevi: thank you for the lecture
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:53] Daruma Boa: thank u herman
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: see you next week
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: ah thank YOU professor
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes..Abraxas...what is human nature...we might find out
[13:53] herman Bergson: class dismissed ㋡
[13:53] Saint Back: thanks a lot
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: aa hope so
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: mmm yes looking to politics shows a lot
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: bye all
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok cu all
[13:54] Daruma Boa: hope 2 be here next week.
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Bejjita
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: I hope so to Daruma
[13:54] herman Bergson: You are welcome Daruma
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: going to OKm now
[13:54] Daruma Boa: have a great weekend;-)
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: OM
[13:54] herman Bergson: What message did you send?
[13:54] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye
[13:54] Zinzi's translator: bye bye
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: you to Daruma :D
[13:54] herman Bergson: Your notice?
[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks herman and class :-)) see u tuesday
[13:55] herman Bergson: Ok Bergie... xxx
[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-)+y

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 ^_^