TED Conversations

Johnny Mac

Role? Who defines that?, I need to get organized.

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does "Liberty" mean the pursuit of one's self interest?

Explanation: Liberty in economic terms. By seeking one's own gain, they make gains for everybody. The economy is a mechanism for transforming private gain into public benefit. Each person is a cog in this machine.
Or are all social systems built on the proper understanding of the human person...This person I the source and end of all social and economic value. Which is it? or do you think it is something else?

+4
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 11 2014: Liberty means one's will that enables him to use his pursuit of his self interest for doing good things to others.
    • thumb
      Jan 12 2014: found this quote:
      Liberty in economic terms is a common and shared universal awareness of the economic transparency with regards to the common rate of exchange! why discriminate? why exploit? no one can beat time, all work is equal within the temporal period of a natural life span, no one can work that much harder than the next person because they are all physical prisoners of a temporal unity of reality which restricts their ability to be superhuman, hence, an economy of the people by the people, for the people should relate and respect the human condition with compassion if it wants to succeed – ‘Rogue Trader’
      • Jan 13 2014: Bog,

        why discriminate? because not all work is equal within the temporal period of a natural life span! There is a difference in hiring this or that individual! Some do work harder than the next person and are more efficient, and effective at getting the job done. It's even possible that the hard work done by someone is a rather simple diversion for somebody else. What may be simple for me to do may be complicated for you to accomplish and what may be valuable to you/me may not be valuable to me/you... ideally we should find ways to enrich everyones lives ... the thing is that as you mentioned some would rather exploit others than engage in transparent regard to the common benefit of everyone.
        • thumb
          Jan 14 2014: The common rate of exchange is the common right of exchange if the composition of exchange is true to the unity of gain as a common translatable standard of living within the balance and regulation of fiscal equilibrium.

          If by working the individual is making gains for everybody should everybody gain the same standard income as a principle of living within a states standard of unity to life as an individual and universal meaning...the duality of self is between the individual age of reason and the collective age of reasonable security if by distribution fiscal security breaths a standard and quality of life into the temporal path of every breathing member of the same is the meaning of gain not greater than the individual utility of the word in action?

          Should the natural equality of a condition aligned to liberty as a rule of translatable law financially discriminate between one human intellect and the next if everybody gains by every bodies action through pure financial equality?

          What is the best way to distribute the compilation of human gains to everybody if everybody gains from everybody’s action through work?

          Financial discrimination in the division of gain is the division of unity, the division of state, division of community cohesion, division of security, division of a standard, division of a quality of life...why would anyone want to divide the meaning of gainful employment into a have and have not condition when they could democratically agree upon the significance of a fair, reasonable and transparent working contract.

          I don't want to earn more or less than the next individual because I respect the liberty of the next individual, as much as I respect my own, I don't want to pay more or less tax than the next individual because tax is a collective utility of gain we all share the public benefits of?

          Why should I (whatever my work), want to earn more or less than you, if Liberty was Right within the temporal future as common universal truth?
      • Jan 14 2014: Bog,

        There are lots of ideas embedded into what you stated, and depending on the associated meaning to them, the words lead to different actions. For example take ", I don't want to pay more or less tax than the next individual ', does that mean everyone should pay the same tax or does that mean everyone should pay the same proportional levy? In other words Is the equal duty payed based on some standard of unity or some proportional base? Why would some have to pay more for the same services? Why would one have to pay for some service one doesn't even get or even worst artificially created to 'incentive' that one pay? For example the other day I was in a conversation related to extortions because many businesses in the area had had to close down dew to such practices. It was a rather curious chat because it revolved around the idea that one had to pay one way or another. My comment sought to focus on the issue of why would one need to pay for protection one way or the other to begin with? Evidently we each should contribute towards the wellbeing and betterment of everyone to improve the standard and quality of life of everyone. The issue here has more to do with dealing with discriminating and distributing the costs/benefits/values.

        The fact we could democratically agree hardly implies that we reach such agreements or that such agreements would be reasonable. Getting the whole population to agree on some issue can be rather elaborate besides the control by the majority of the members or the practice or principles of social equality can be a pretty facades that prevents proper addressing of the fundamental issues. A single voice of reason should suffice to gag unreasonable demands ... and authoritatively guide what takes place. It should be self-evident why we ought to discriminate reasonable and unreasonable demands and only allow the reasonable. As i sort of said : why discriminate? because of benefits of choosing what is right and valuable over alternatives
        • thumb
          Jan 16 2014: Hi Esteban,

          If universally we had a progressive unconditional income based fiscal autonomy every common member with natural authority to choose, would own a common universal standard and quality of life regardless of their background, as a moral imperative of fiscal certainty. Is progressive fiscal certainty a good idea?

          To what extent is gain mutual respect, should we identify universally before we identify individually, is the collective age more significant than the particular age, everything we are certain of is in the past, yet, 7 billion footprints exist in the present, hence, is it a matter of time before democracy gets bigger?

          If the carbon future is the intrinsic value of 7 - 11.5 billion footprints what if a fair, reasonable and transparent rate of consumption per individual given the Earth is the common wealth singularity we share temporally. How do 7 billion income related neighbors balance the books if each individual through their rate of income was respecting the planet as much as the next person...should the working environment of the modern civilization respect each other as much as they respect their home?

          Is it right for the majority to gain by democratic consensus if the opportunity to gain presents itself within a future common age of awareness…liberation is a slow process, but how should we calibrate independence with liberty if freedom to choose is restricted?

          Financial discrimination is an uncivilized management tool of an amoral history of consequences that can only be exercised through resetting of the moral and fiscal financial compass of global economics. Absolute pure equality is justice for all if justice for all is the purpose and objective of social justice.

          Temporal morality is the unified respect for life beyond the physical appearance in the past present and future morphology of change! The ownership of change is a democratic opportunity to exceed benchmarks of liberation defined by previous ancestral groups.
      • Jan 16 2014: Bog,

        What do you mean by 'progressive fiscal certainty'?

        I find rather peculiar how some of the most despot wasteful contaminating people create the facade that others should conserve and not be wasteful shielding themselves behind the idea that it's the others who need to change and because they will not change and they will not change their ways.

        You do realize that some benchmarks of liberation are not to be exceeded in fact some possibilities are meant to remain as just possibilities forever constrained as mere possibilities . Unfortunately some individuals and some being do not respect their home thus using that kind of respect as the baseline to how to respect each other opens the door to all sort of stuff... Better that each individual respect their home and others as each ought be respected accordingly to what actually ought to be done!

        What if those that consume more payed fair price rather than at a discount and those who didn't consume get payed for not consuming. Even better get payed at a premium for not consuming and get charged at a discount for consuming little ... heavy consumers would have to pay at an even larger premium... The thing is that some footprints who think they don't consume much consume much more than simpler individuals who don't have the resources to demand a fair deal.

        Take for example radioactive contamination of the environment and other contaminants that have affected millions if not billions of individuals who end up paying the cost with their health...

        the issue here as I see it revolves about identifying universally AND individually ... it isn't one vs the others ... it is one synergetic collaboration between one and the others... those who kill end up killing themselves and those who live end up living with those who desire to live...
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2014: Universal liberation or peace is a common opportunity of any common age given the right mechanism for change.

          If respect for common fiscal liberty is the moral imperative of gain, sharing liberty in a more transparent way would be beneficial to development, if all personal development was gain.

          The liberation of gain is in the quality as opposed to the inequality of distribution to the meaning and purpose of justice in motion. If the law of human right as a fiscal reality is true for one, should not all humans gain significance by the same standard of truth within the harmony of interrelated exchange, if in equilibrium of democratic order to meaning in life, we discover peace?

          Is universal liberation a greater gain than the perception of individual gain and is individual excessive rights to gain obstructing growth in liberation, whose growth is relative to the intrinsic value of the human condition as physical and mental growth, is fiscal security, fiscal health, fiscal well-being, fiscal standard and quality of life a common law awareness of distribution in motion yet to be realized?

          Should a right to future life be a certainty we experience without prejudice?

          Should a right to future work be a certainty we experience without prejudice?

          The proportion of currency in a system should be linked to the number of humans in existence, if distribution is a representation of reward for employment, how should the universal value of work be measured, given all employment is a temporal arrangement?

          Should temporal contracts of employment be on the international curriculum, is common and unique security a common right of transparency…is currency, supposed to make humans secure or insecure or is there a happy medium within which equality is a commonly understood truth within the fiscal future of a common kind?
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2014: Fiscal certainty is a fair, reasonable, transparent, sustainable rate of fiscal liquidity within the temporal micro pathways of each and every member of the same condition, effectively putting the lights on in the intellectual forward chamber of a universal macro brain. The economy is ahead of each and every democratic public face between the temporal jurisdiction of beginnings and end, therefore, we share a common security within the natural rate of exchange, if all exchange is equal to the intrinsic value of each and every member of state, what is the universal value of the state to the meaning of progress, life and death?

          What is the purpose of logical equations if as a kind we are less equal than ever…it didn’t start out this way!

          The temporal contract thus embraces all existing laws and projects legal certainty into the future subconscious highway of the human condition to illuminate the quality of future life within the temporal micro chambers of a naturally unified international state, a common unique brain between the individual state and the universal state of natural awareness. Creating a universal positive mental platform for growth and development morality in which the human is the intrinsic value of growth.
      • Jan 18 2014: Bog Creature,

        I been working with the notion of transcending equilibrium through incorporation of a much richer idea that manages to produce a singular perspective, deeper than the alternate individual views, especially when someone insists on maintaining opposing forces. My temporal assertions stemming from 'the timeless way' are perceived by the opposers as opposing; are perceived by the supporters as supporting; are perceived by the knowers as informative insights (of course some knowers perceive the actual validity underlying the assertions and some perceive other stuff). The temporal become atemporal given they have a beginning from which they continue to exists eternally. I realize that conversing about 'after' after time runs it's course is akin to conversing about 'before' before time initial existence which may be perceived by some as... it being this or it being that; it being this AND it being that. 'When' we observe that the underlying notion of being as related to time itself 'THEN' some may wonder of the possible ways to converse resorting to 'the timeless way'. What would that involve? Right now I would bet few know about the E-Prime language scheme: a thinking clarifying device theta strengthens communicating by 'inducing' a focus towards individuals experiences rather than allow individuals to confuse opinions with facts. If we allow equality between valid and invalid ways of thinking on the basis that every individual has a right and freedom to their opinions THEN we allowed injustice to correspond to justice rather than ensure the right order everybody into proper just ways.

        Peace can be discovered by many ways. Why should we hold the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities rather than recognize individual singular abilities and value the uniqueness of each one? It's rather curious that what sets us apart is also what unites us, only certain individual singularities ought be allowed to develop.
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2014: Hi Esteban,

          I don't dispute the abilities of particular singularities but the division of labor (physical/mental intelligence) is the division of unity to the concept of 'work' as a democratically regulated interpretation of liberty within the temporal contract of a working life.

          How is Liberty, Liberty if a few gain by exploitation of the masses, how is it democratic?

          Also the accumulation of skills and abilities is the accumulation of ancestral public knowledge, hence, is public knowledge meant to serve public gains or private gains in a public state of the union? Should the Earth be a public property of the people or a privatized consortium between the few?
      • Jan 18 2014: Bog,

        Why would the division of labor (physical/mental intelligence) lead to the division of unity? Of course we ought to 'keep in mind' the spirit, emotions, and a couple of other notions.

        Also why focus on a few gaining by exploitation of the masses?
        I can see a focus of how a few gain by the cultivation of the masses .
        I can even see how everyone gains by the symbiotic enriching interactions that a few and the masses have with each other and amongst themselves.

        The accumulation of skills and abilities in each could be seen as the accumulation of ancestral public/private/individual knowledges just at it could be seen as ... (This, That and Everything Else - including the many possibilities)! You ask: is public knowledge meant to serve public gains or private gains in a public state of the union? I say both and a bit more!

        In regards to your inquiry: Should the Earth be a public property of the people or a privatized consortium between the few? I am inclined to say that the possession of the Earth sounds a bit demonic and would posit that there exists better alternatives to the management of the commons and individual resources. Evidently we seem to still have lots to learn in this regard... with some needing a bit more work than others... unfortunately it seems that the ones who need to learn the most are the ones least interested in learning... SO we seem to still have to learn in this regard too... how does one help someone who needs to change but doesn't want to change nor wants others to help them realize what they ought to do to choose to do what they ought to do and change what ought to change?

        Personally I am still wondering and pondering about that... any ideas?
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2014: Why would the division of labor (physical/mental intelligence) lead to the division of unity? Of course we ought to 'keep in mind' the spirit, emotions, and a couple of other notions...I guess it already has, if you count the division of natural equality into universal inequality over generations past, but, generations forward is a common/unique opportunity to address the imbalance left in the wake of capitalism and its crony relative.

          I can even see how everyone gains by the symbiotic enriching interactions that a few and the masses have with each other and amongst themselves...nice sentiment, but, it's not real democracy, it's corporate manipulation and monopolization of the process, which, is the opposite of enriching in my mind, its more akin to a criminal dictatorship, but, while the masses swallow the load its just business as usual!

          The accumulation of skills and abilities in each could be seen as the accumulation of ancestral public/private...the majority of ancestors are dead, hence, it can only be public knowledge if they left privately contributed knowledge in the continuum with an educational value.

          The possession of the Earth sounds demonic...sorry I'm not religious, If the species with the ability to realize possession of a singularity of common wealth agree upon the legitimacy of common law ownership between the 7 billion living ancestors, the shares of morality and growth will be a level playing field and a real legacy to pass onto future caretakers.

          posit that there exists better alternatives to the management of the commons and individual resources...there will always be better ways to share the load!

          The ones least interested in learning were conditioned and manufactured to comply with the perceived demand for compliance by the elites with the carrot and stick.

          any ideas?
          Change, the employment system, education system, economy, make the rule of law an educational prerequisite beyond appearance, utilize democracy to stimulate growth!
      • Jan 19 2014: Bog,

        Did you know that 'democracy' is often a facade of 'corporate manipulation and monopolization of the process...'? 'the masses swallow the load its just business as usual'!

        BTW If the species with the ability to realize possession of a singularity of common wealth agree upon the legitimacy of common law ownership ... it still does note make such possession actually legitimate (it just usurps a singularity and takes possession of it claiming legitimacy without really having it).

        I sort of perceive how you seem insistent on the notion of 'democracy' ... over individual freedoms... to guide the ordering of interactions... my insistence tends to focus more on the notion of the individuals choosing to do what the individual ought to do... which would respect both the individual freedom and the directive of doing what ought to be done ... thus the guiding principle of order follows intrinsic and extrinsic foundations without the need of explicit rules of law nor dedicated policing agents. Where a single voice of righteousness suffices to guide and direct everyones actions.
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2014: Hi Esteban,
          Yeah, possession and ownership of the Earth in a world entrenched in possessions and ownership is not conducive to a realistic appreciation of temporal judicial morality between the singularity of species versus the singular object of natural association, hence, 'claim universal responsibility for', instead of ownership of, which, is a public legitimacy as opposed to a private one. Anyhow, ownership and possession was your tangent, my question was is the Earth a public property or a private property?

          I would say a public property, given 7 billion individual private judicial subconscious chambers constitute the conscious universal public face of reality in perpetual motion. Also is space (inner and outer) a public property or a private property, neither or both in your mind?
          I would say in exchange we convert public space into private subconscious reflection of the appearance of reality unique to the individual observer, but, as a species we are in reality blind to the real environment, which, encapsulates our condition. I would also say this process of exchange and conversion is the origin and precursor behind the history and accumulation of all ancestral knowledge and the organizational framework of all knowledge's is the democratic freedom of future members of the same condition to choose paths of personal liberation between the individual and universal dynamic.

          I think true democracy is complimentary to our state and status as free thinking participants of growth transparency. I don't see democracy over individual freedoms, I see democracy expanding and enhancing individual freedoms through the real consensus of participation... which would respect both the individual freedom and the directive of doing what ought to be done ... thus the guiding principle of order follows intrinsic and extrinsic foundations without the need of explicit rules of law nor dedicated policing agents.

          It helps if everyone understand the same rule in practice, but, do they
      • Jan 19 2014: Bog,

        The question you posted considered that the earth was a property and you wanted to know who's property it was... 'the tangent' I put forth related to the notion of possession of things ( which I sort of said had some relationship to the demonic ways of controlling stuff). If you insist on pushing the notion of property belonging to someone and that it be a public property then we need to consider that the public includes everyone: which even includes the future generations.Asking 'who does space belong to'? implicitly posits that space-time belongs to someone or somebody or something... I am pointing out this implicit projection and questioning it's veracity? To put it in a slightly different form I would rather we focus on 1- what be right rather than on 2- who be right. When we focus on 1- what be right, we may learn a bunch of things. Notice that 2- who be right is akin to asking 'who's property it be'. I would rather we shift the focus and wonder about it being a property to be owned or a place to be cared for. When we focus on who be right who owns the property the conversations tend to lead to conflicts of interests where as when we focus on the place to be cared for and what ought to be done with it the conversations tend to lead in a different direction.

        I liked what you said about 'this process of exchange and conversion'. I hold the process is a bit bidirectional and that while the individual only has access to their recreative internal constructs these can be identical copies to external constructs. In fact some can change the internal copy and have the external one reflect such change!

        Evidently some understand the same rule in practice in different ways ... and it helps to understand how each understands the same rule, how they practice it and the correspondences involved. BTW maybe seeking personal liberation distracts from focusing on personal transformation one ought to incorporate to transcend 'captivity' and realize what and how one be.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.