daniel

It is often said that if something is bad in practice than it can't be good in theory. However what do you think of this view: it's not the theory that's to blame but the world, the people etc. The ideas are still right it's just this world that lets them down and so we can't criticse the theory.

Governement, as measured by expenditure and legislation, has grown greatly over the past hundred years in a great number of countries. What explains this? Self serving pen pushers? Lobbyists? Rising wealth? Public demand? War?

Hi I was reading an article which argued that in the Uk cheap labour is taking over. It casts doubt on the idea that the UK is doing well in the emplyment stakes since Germany has a higher unemployment rate but is the highest exporting nation in the world. Consequenlty it argues that the government should do more to bring back manufacturing jobs. It ends with the argument that the government can't put all the blame on China give that Germany is the top exporter? Wht are your views on these views? What is wrong with the above argument?

I was told that the freest time the world has ever had was in the early 19th century and especially the late 18th century in the US. Is this true? He argued this was because there was an absence of monopolies and government control. I thought the mid and late 19th century US was the freest era. However this was dismissed with the idea that monopolies and trusts etc in oil, shipping etc made it less free. Furthermore it was said that competition was destroyed, prices increased and entrepreneurship in 'old industries' e.g. oil was very difficult. What are your views on this?

You are wrong it is based on the 12 apostles. Please read John Redwood's book 'Just Say No'. It's not true. Just because it's 12 doesn't automatically make it related to 12 Apostles. Same goes for the number of hours in the day, or months in a year, or inches in a foot... It is true. As i suggested to the other poster read Redwood's 'Just Say No'. Yo make it sound as if I looked at the EU flag and saw 12 stars and than said it must be based on the 12 Apostles because of that. I never did. I know it's based on the 12 Apostles because it's a historical fact documented in a very succesful book by a well respected author.

It is a historical fact that the EU flag is based on the 12 apostles. I never said the people of the EU are/were irrational. Rather I implied the EU was irrational, which is obvious given such polices as CAP. Furthermore the EU (and the flag) was formed in the 1950s, a much more religious and so irrational period. On the issue of the people of the EU I would hardly call them rational - electing the corrupt Chiraq, reaction after Madrid bombings, the mess Germans have got themselves into with their recent election etc

Yes, CAP costs each household $1,100 a year in taxes, each cow got $2.62 in 2003, we pay two times over the world price for lamb, 80% over the world price for sugar and 50% over the world price for corn. France and Germany are standing in the way of a much more open Europe. Non-agression pact? That is not even required thanks to Nato and in fact the EU may lead to aggression not prevent it. Also the flag of the EU is based on the 12 Apostles - irrational to the root.

A flat tax is a great idea. Hong Kong has had one for decades and we all know what an economic miracle that is. Those countries with a flat tax are growing (GDP wise) at around double to those without a flat tax.

How do you view the EU? Politically good but economically bad? Just plain bad? Do you think it has a good future?

I agree. I would counter positive freedom theorists by saying man is an end in himself, not a part of man hidden inside himself is an end in himself. I'd also say positive freedom results in abuse and tyranny. How would you counter the 'dilemma's point'? I'd say that even though people face dilemmas the person concerned has the biggest incentive of making the correct choice, after all it's their life.

Free from himself. Its not schizophrenic to realise people face dilemmas. I've had dilemmas, i think most people have, for example, today i was tired and wanted to go home but I had a lecture which was important so I went to the lecture. I felt this way because I can experience a variety of emotions. I know that even if this choice is irrational its still me making it, however, positive freedom advocates argue if its irrational you shouldn't make it. Furthermore you wouldn't be being forced because its for your own good you just don't know it because your 'lower' self is dominant due to a lack of education. This is Rousseau's idea of being 'forced to be free'. This is NOT my view. I merely wanted the views of Objectivists, not a debate. Source - thanks for giving an alternative defintion. RationalCop - I don't 'espouse' any philosophy in this debate (though I am an Objectivist), rather i'm asking others opinions on the philosophy of positive liberty. I'm not adopting a view, rather explaining one and ideally get some other Objectivists views of it. Some have given those responses.

Positive freedom is the freedom to achieve certain ends, negative freedom is freedom from coercion. Positive freedom means, for example, people being coerced into education so they can 'realise' themselves. I oppose it because it is so open to abuse. I know that my scenario showed he was acting of his own accord, that's part of the point. 'His' being the important word - his irrational self. Most people have felt two selves, for example when someone wishes to sleep with their best friends wife but also wishes to remain loyal to their friend. Thus is he free? Some scholars such as Charles Taylor say no, others, for example Berlin, say yes. I suggest people become more familiar with the negative versus positive liberty debate. Has anyone actually read Berlin's 'Two Concepts of Liberty'? This site will give background and the example: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Freedom is the independence of an individual from interferance by others. PS I don't actually support positve liberty, I'm merely interested in the ways Objectivists would counter the above scenario. I know my views, I want to know others. Out of interest why? Why do you require my defintion of freedom before you give an answer. Will my answer have any effect whatsoever? If he was irrational, why did he stop to buy cigarettes? Evidently, your idea that the man is irrational is irrational. Because he was motivated by passion, a spur of the moment feeling. Not all actions are rational just because people do them. Why do people give up hours of their time every week to worship a God? Because they are irrational. Also I don't think man is irrational, I think some men are. Finally its not my idea, rather its a long idea going back to the thinking of Rousseau, Hegal, Marx

A man is driving to the airport to catch a flight to a very important meeting that he wants to go to; it will help his career. However on the way he diverts his drive to buy cigarettes. Is he free? Is he not a prisoner to his irrational self? Is he not divided? Should not someone interfere? Does interferance always lead to dictatorship? Or take this example: Are British people free to go to the Bahamas? There is no law against it, but few can afford it. So is it freedom (after all it's not practical)? Edit - Corrected, in the future please use proper grammar. - Felipe

Though Germany has had bad news lately in Britian things look a bit better. It looks that tne next leader of the conservative party will be the best thats on offer i.e. wants low taxes, supports euthanasia, abortion, zero tolerance. He also highlights American approaches to welfare reform thaty have succeeded in getting huge proprtions of American people back into work. He talks of replacing the welfare state with a welfare society i.e relying more on chairty, families looking after one another. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4262522.stm So far he has around 44 MPs, his nearest rival has around 14. Bring on 2009! What do others make of him? Also what about the issue of supporting someone who is not the best rather the least worse? Is it justified?