is freedom real

[midcan5]

Kathianne, we can discuss whether one form of government is better or worse but who would we ask and how would we measure it? Many communists were upset with the transition to a more democratic form of government - but I bet lots would go back. Seems it is heading that way now. Culture play a part too, they lived under Czars for a long time.

AllieBaba, I disagree that rural places are safer or more democratic or for that matter good places to live. When I was a GI traveling through Alabama's back roads were scary things, villages don't like outsiders. This was late sixties. Also rural areas have less supporting structures. Your position is solipsist.

GunnyL, I mostly agree with you but I think too there is a reality that defines what we can do - potential. If there were a level playing field I could agree with the rhetoric that says you have freedom to do anything and then uses that rhetoric to say you got what you deserved.

ScreamingEagle, reading political philosophy, and Adam Swift uses part of my parable in one of his books, thus the apology. If the idea of freedom is only related to one ideology how can the results look the same. I assume the woman who can't travel in the democracy has no way of solving the problem as Alli suggests, or as most suggest who take it too literally. Think of the child brought up in a home with little support, would they know something else was possible? How.


"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, we can discuss whether one form of government is better or worse but who would we ask and how would we measure it? Many communists were upset with the transition to a more democratic form of government - but I bet lots would go back. Seems it is heading that way now. Culture play a part too, they lived under Czars for a long time.

...

Are you trying to say, that many communists were upset with the transition to a more democratic form of government-and that many of them wish to return to the previous system?

No one today in what was the former Soviet Union lived under the Czars.

 

[AllieBaba]

Are you trying to say, that many communists were upset with the transition to a more democratic form of government-and that many of them wish to return to the previous system?

No one today in what was the former Soviet Union lived under the Czars.

That doesn't mean they can't return to that system, though.

 

[Annie]

That doesn't mean they can't return to that system, though.

Huh? Somehow this isn't making sense to me. Who said they 'can't?' My post was in response to that I quoted.

 

[AllieBaba]

AllieBaba, I disagree that rural places are safer or more democratic or for that matter good places to live. When I was a GI traveling through Alabama's back roads were scary things, villages don't like outsiders. This was late sixties. Also rural areas have less supporting structures. Your position is solipsist.

Scary, but not necessarily dangerous.

But the south is a different animal. I've been in very rural areas which were scary too. But those were generally settlements, poverty stricken and isolated. I'm talking about areas where the people are self-sufficient and armed.

There are stats, I believe, which support the concept that an armed population is a safe population. Though I haven't looked at them in a while.

 

[AllieBaba]

Huh? Somehow this isn't making sense to me. Who said they 'can't?' My post was in response to that I quoted.

Maybe I'm confused too. I was trying to point out that they wouldn't have to have actually lived it to appreciate it and replicate it. Does that make sense?

 

[Diuretic]

You can not possibly be serious. Anarchy does not work on any scale, though it may sort of function on a very small one. Further in anarchy one has no rights except those they are capable of enforcing themselves. In anarchy there would be no airport, no airplane because those things take a Government to enable to be built, designed and available.

Now one could argue that IF anarchy occurred NOW those things would exists but they wouldn't exists for very long in a working condition. Further the fuel and power to run the aircraft and the airfield would not be able to be provided.

Governments are a neccassary "evil" well until Jesus takes over anyway. And even then HE will be King and will rule, as our Government.

I'm perfectly serious. Government is oppression. Unfortunately it's necessary but that doesn't make it desirable. Anarchism, non-government, works fine, it's always been with us in some form or another. The trick is to have a society with advanced technology and a high standard of living without government being in the way all the time.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

ScreamingEagle, reading political philosophy, and Adam Swift uses part of my parable in one of his books, thus the apology. If the idea of freedom is only related to one ideology how can the results look the same. I assume the woman who can't travel in the democracy has no way of solving the problem as Alli suggests, or as most suggest who take it too literally. Think of the child brought up in a home with little support, would they know something else was possible? How.

What kind of leap of twisted logic are you attempting to create here in order to equate two completely different forms of government? Who the heck is Adam Swift? Is he what you call a "communitarian"?

You seem really hung up in your fictitious example. Just because you wind up with a couple results that "look the same" does not mean that, as a result, you can equate two wholly different forms of government. This reminds me of the many stupid socialist/communist/totalitarian "intellectual" arguments that are created by fringe elements in order to "validate" their systems.

Your "results" can look the same on the surface but, of course, that is only a superficial view. For example if you were to look at the people involved and their "internal results" you are probably looking at vastly different "results". On one hand you may have a woman who is stimulated to create something to make extra money to buy a ticket to travel while on the other hand you may have a woman who gives up on life because there is no hope of ever getting a ticket.

And don't compare the woman to a child and assume she cannot figure out things for herself. That is such a denigrating elitist viewpoint of mankind…. but, of course, your assumption of her "helplessness" gives you the excuse to step in and "solve" things, doesn't it?

 

[midcan5]

Kathianne, maybe I am not making myself clear, in any society there are winners and losers, many soviet citizens would be winners under communism, why would they want a democracy or even an attempt at democracy if that caused them to no longer be winners. Yes, the czars were long ago just like our cowboys and Indians or our founding fathers were long ago. Doesn't make their influence any less real.

Screaming, why can't I compare a child's life to a woman's life? The woman didn't materialize full grown. Adam Swift is political philosopher. Freedom is used here because it is often used as if there were equal freedom for everyone, the point of the piece is to think is that true. You don't even need two different political systems although the juxtaposition makes it more complicated.

http://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/staff/staff.asp?action=show&person=92

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm perfectly serious. Government is oppression. Unfortunately it's necessary but that doesn't make it desirable. Anarchism, non-government, works fine, it's always been with us in some form or another. The trick is to have a society with advanced technology and a high standard of living without government being in the way all the time.

Anarchy can not breed freedom for all. It creates freedom only for those powerful enough to take what they want or Charismatic enough to keep followers capable of taking what they want.

Most people in an anarchy system will be helpless, used and with little more then fear and enslavement. Claiming otherwise is not very bright.

You may like the illusion that in anarchy one can do what ever they want, but the reality is they can only do what ever they have the power and ability to do. Anyone stronger can take away their "freedom" anytime they want. Commerce would grind to halt, as would science and schools. Society would become dog eat dog and a hell of a lot of people would simply die or be killed, the majority of the rest little more than slaves or serfs to the warlords that managed to control their areas. Anarchy does not last as men come together SOMEONE or some group always will fill the vacuum of no power.

You simply have not thought past the illusion into the reality. Unless you live somewhere that is totally self sufficient and all the members of the area will band together for defense then return to no control when the crisis is past, your anarchy can not function. Where do you get food from? Where do you get power for running things from? Where fuel from? Where do you get commodities from? Where do you get TV, Movies and radio from? Telephones? A mail system? A travel system? on and on and on.

 

[Diuretic]

Anarchy can not breed freedom for all. It creates freedom only for those powerful enough to take what they want or Charismatic enough to keep followers capable of taking what they want.

It doesn't "create" freedom, it allows freedom.

Most people in an anarchy system will be helpless, used and with little more then fear and enslavement. Claiming otherwise is not very bright.

Why would people change from what they're like now?

You may like the illusion that in anarchy one can do what ever they want, but the reality is they can only do what ever they have the power and ability to do. Anyone stronger can take away their "freedom" anytime they want. Commerce would grind to halt, as would science and schools. Society would become dog eat dog and a hell of a lot of people would simply die or be killed, the majority of the rest little more than slaves or serfs to the warlords that managed to control their areas. Anarchy does not last as men come together SOMEONE or some group always will fill the vacuum of no power.

How are these things going to happen? You've described situations but you haven't explained why they will happen.

You simply have not thought past the illusion into the reality. Unless you live somewhere that is totally self sufficient and all the members of the area will band together for defense then return to no control when the crisis is past, your anarchy can not function. Where do you get food from? Where do you get power for running things from? Where fuel from? Where do you get commodities from? Where do you get TV, Movies and radio from? Telephones? A mail system? A travel system? on and on and on.

Again, why would these things disappear?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It doesn't "create" freedom, it allows freedom.



Why would people change from what they're like now?



How are these things going to happen? You've described situations but you haven't explained why they will happen.



Again, why would these things disappear?

You can not be serious? How would they happen? No laws, no government, just anarchy? Stop and think for just a moment what that means? Who is going to build and maintain highways? Who is going to make comodities? How will oil be drilled for. pumped out and delivered anywhere? Who will build power stations, power lines, all the infrastructure of the modern world? Who will maintain it?

How will schools run? why will children even go? Why will adults go when there will be no business or facilities to employ them afterwards?

Where will money come from? Banks? Stores?

The list is endless.

They will disappear because eventually no one will be able to build them or fix them and more directly they will disappear as the infrastructure and the security of laws cease to protect the ability to provide the needed materials and fuels or power to run them.

Why will warlords appear? You have to be kidding me. Why will the weak become slaves or serfs? Are you serious? Your delusion is amazing.

 

[Diuretic]

They will disappear because eventually no one will be able to build them or fix them and more directly they will disappear as the infrastructure and the security of laws cease to protect the ability to provide the needed materials and fuels or power to run them.

Why will no-one be able to build them or fix them? Will they be struck by amnesia and lose the power to remember how to do this?

You don't see to be able to grasp the point. Perhaps the idea of no government is frightening to you so you have to dream up nightmare scenarios.

The infrastructure and security of laws doesn't stop simply because there's no government. Government isn't society. People will be able to organise themselves without government. The paradox is that as societies become more effective in terms of operation the role of government disappears. In fact government becomes oppressive as it seeks to hold on to power over the people.

Your point about warlords is an example of how you have failed to understand my point. No government doesn't mean the end of society, it simply means total freedom for people. They won't allow warlords to dominate and there will be no serfs. We're serfs now, serfs to our governments, our rulers.

Lay off the Mad Max movies, they're making your brain mushy

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why will no-one be able to build them or fix them? Will they be struck by amnesia and lose the power to remember how to do this?

You don't see to be able to grasp the point. Perhaps the idea of no government is frightening to you so you have to dream up nightmare scenarios.

The infrastructure and security of laws doesn't stop simply because there's no government. Government isn't society. People will be able to organise themselves without government. The paradox is that as societies become more effective in terms of operation the role of government disappears. In fact government becomes oppressive as it seeks to hold on to power over the people.

Your point about warlords is an example of how you have failed to understand my point. No government doesn't mean the end of society, it simply means total freedom for people. They won't allow warlords to dominate and there will be no serfs. We're serfs now, serfs to our governments, our rulers.

Lay off the Mad Max movies, they're making your brain mushy

Your the mushy one. In one breath you claim no Government and true anarchy and in the next you claim all sorts of governments just on smaller scales. You do not want a central Government, fine argue that, do not pretend that somehow Anarchy is the way to go. Anarchy is no Government, no rules, no laws, no organized groups at all. It is everyone for himself, doing only what they want, when they want and what they are capable of doing or forcing to be done.

Anarchy will result in exactly what I have stated. The strongest will rule in the areas they can control, effectively ending Anarchy to begin with. A communion is not Anarchy. They have rules and "laws". People do not get to just do what ever they want with no responsibility or duties.

Get your terms right.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

6 definitions of Anarchy, with only one claiming anything like you suggest.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

A THEORY, that in effect requires a FORM of government anyway.

Remind us what Theories are again?

Here let me help you....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Theory

Your use of the word is wrong. I suggest further that the theory will NOT work on any great scale. We have LOTS of examples in the real world to remind us my suggestion is in fact the likely outcome.

Further the definition is in fact how our ( The United States)government came to be and the principle of the Constitution. Ultimately the PEOPLE rule. In a venture requiring their active acceptance and participation. The people could in fact decide to shit can the whole thing. The Constitution is clear. The people can demand a new Constitution or NONE at all. They can call a Constitutional Congress and write up any thing they want and submit it to the people for approval.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlev.html

 

[Diuretic]

When the dictionaries are produced it's a sure sign the argument has petered out.

–verb (used without object) peter out,
1. to diminish gradually and stop; dwindle to nothing: The hot water always peters out in the middle of my shower.
2. to tire; exhaust (usually used as a past participle): I'm petered out after that walk.
[Origin: 1805–15, in sense “put an end to”; 1860–65 for def. 1; orig. uncert.]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When the dictionaries are produced it's a sure sign the argument has petered out.

Your argument sure has.

 

[Diuretic]

Everything's a battle for you isn't it? I get the sense that there's no conversational inquiry for you, it's like a duel, where someone has to win and someone has to lose.

Getting back to the original question - is freedom real? No it isn't. We think we're free but we're not. Any of us who live in a society that has government can fool ourselves into thinking we're free but in reality we're not. We're bound by oblgation and duty although there is a vague recognition of things we call "rights". But having "rights" isn't the same as living in a state of freedom. That's the point I've been trying to make.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Screaming, why can't I compare a child's life to a woman's life? The woman didn't materialize full grown. Adam Swift is political philosopher. Freedom is used here because it is often used as if there were equal freedom for everyone, the point of the piece is to think is that true. You don't even need two different political systems although the juxtaposition makes it more complicated.

http://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/staff/staff.asp?action=show&person=92

What do you mean the woman did not "materialize full grown"? I don't think you should compare a child to an adult unless you think all adults are like children (helpless & dependent) and that adults have no capacity to learn and do things on their own. Freedom is the ability to do just that…it's the option to do so, not getting the results.

What a person does with their freedom is another matter altogether and can produce different results - i.e., buy tickets or not buy tickets. A person who must ask the government for permission to buy a ticket to travel is a person with a whole lot less freedom than one who does not have to ask - because the government controls the travel, the individual does not. In that case you might say that a government-controlled person is like a child….dependent upon a parent (the government) for permission to travel.

Adam Swift appears to be a British professor with a degree in sociology and a political writer too. I wish those British socialists would keep their ideas to themselves or at least not infect the US with them.

 

[Diuretic]

Given that US citizens have to seek permission to travel to Cuba, does that mean you're less free than those of us who live in countries where we're not required to seek permission from our government to visit a certain country?

It doesn't of course, because freedom, I think, isn't relative. We are or we aren't. Where government exists we're not truly free.