Liberty and Responsibility

[vertigo]

Liberty must be secured and defended for it to have any reality. Libertarians, in their desire to end coercion, must take on board the responsibility of seeing that coercion is punished. No libertarian can hope to be free of the responsibility of securing freedom. Freedom can not be given by those that have it not.

Liberty, as the absense of responsibility, is founded on a most grave responsibility, the responsibility to secure freedom for all. Responsibility is more necessary even than liberty. Reflect if you will on all the myriads of people who have demanded liberty in the past. Was it liberty for all that they were trying to acquire? Were they putting themselves forward to share the responsibility for securing freedom, or did they only want freedom for themselves, freedom from all responsibility?

The revolutionaries, guns in hand, who throw out the previous order, are they putting themselves forward to take on the grave responsibility of guarding freedom for all? Is a better life for all what they go on to provide? Who will provide it, and how?

Society is predicated on mutual responsibility. Everyone is responsible and everyone is held to account. Everyone must pay their way. Are those revolutionaries proposing to make everyone pay their share? The flip side is that everyone benefits. That is the society model. In society, everyone pays and everyone benefits. Those who benefit without paying are parasitic, those who pay without benefit are cheated.

So a libertarian society must then be a society where no one is cheated and no one is parasitic.

Is this what is meant by Libertarian Socialism?

[Hierophant]

Uh... what's your definition again? I'm not sure which part, if any, of what you said was what the question refers to.

[vertigo]

Libertarian Socialism sounds like a special kind of socialism that understands liberty. The other kind of socialism is the one where everyone pays and you are mysteriously never eligible for benefits. Supposedly some benefit but it isn't you.

That was my initial apprehension of Libertian Socialism, that liberty would be provided. So I questioned how that would be done.

[Hierophant]

Uh, I have no idea what you're talking about. This might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

[vertigo]

I won't put words in anyone's mouth. That article says nothing about what I have said above. I take it that you mean that what I have said is not relevant, that liberty is not a relevant concern of Libertarian Socialists. Perhaps the name should be changed?

[Hierophant]

What exactly do you want to change it to?

[vertigo]

*I* don't want to change it, I have no interest in the fate of whatever it is. I was merely curious as to how proponents would respond to my question (about how liberty would be provided, if that was a relevant concern).

[Hierophant]

I don't really understand the question. Liberty is not "provided." We are all born free: it is control that is "provided."

[vertigo]

That sounds like Maoist ideology. Are you now a Maoist?

[Hierophant]

What the fuck are you talking about? It's common sense. Without anyone else, you are necessarily free.

[selfish communist]

Vertigo - is English your first language? I suspect not.

I've no idea what any of your posts on this thread mean.

However as Franc said, liberty cannot be provided, you can make your own though. Does that answer your question?

[vertigo]

... as Franc said, liberty cannot be provided, you can make your own though. Does that answer your question?

It does, thank you.

[Lion IRC]

Liberte, egalite, fraternite.
French atheist lefties?
I think not.
Liberty - Free will. (hmmmm?)
Equality - Equal in the eyes of an objective Observer?.
Fraternity - We all share the same Father?
Lion (IRC)

[Hierophant]

Liberty - Free will. (hmmmm?)
Equality - Equal in the eyes of an objective Observer?.
Fraternity - We all share the same Father?

Uh, none of your definitions are correct (except perhaps the free will one). Major fail.