The death of true freedom

[spectrumc01]

Everyone speaks as though we actually have freedom, and have even been free for quite some time now. But in reality we gave up our freedom when we started living together in societies. It was subtle at first, when neighbors miles apart from one another started putting up fences, that is when we needed laws deciding how we are going to live with one another. At that moment true freedom ended.

Now as more and more people crowd together and their interaction with one another increase more and more laws must be made so we can live peaceably with each other. Each law restricts our freedom.

Now we fight with each other over whose freedom will be eliminated next in the form of a brand new law. Every session congress goes to work, and every session they pass laws. If they did not pass laws they would not have a job. If we keep sending them back to Washington they will keep passing laws that limit our freedom even more.

The first act of civilization was to declare freedom dead.

On the contrary, without society and the incumbant laws and regulation, there can be no individual freedom.

Everything about society is the orchestration of the efforts of the many to ease the strain of survival and increase the individual's ability to conduct himself in a manner that is free of fear and directed by reason and spitituality.

Without Society and the incumbant laws and regulation, we are subjects to the whims of those who are more strong or malevolent among us. Without society, there can be no freedom.

The charachteristics of the society in which we we live can enhance or deprive freedoms relative to the ideal, but, absent society, there is no freedom.

This is why those who seek to dominate through fear and terror seek first to dismantle society or choose to operate in areas already devoid of functioning social structures.

From your position may I conclude that you are a liberal and only through structure and regulation may society grow and thrive? You have illustrated my point for me when you speak of those strongerer and more malevolent. The stronger and malevolent are the rich and big business and regulation is put into place to protect us from them. When business complains of too much regulation they decry their lack of freedom, should we stand our ground against them? and what of the ramifications of such actions? are we prepared for them.

It would seem those on the right want to claim lack of freedom to do what they want in the financial arena, and then claim that too much freedom in the social arena is destroying America. The Left want to regulate the financial arena claiming consumer protection limiting the freedom of business, and then champion social freedom to the max claiming as a free society it is only right. Which is correct, they both want to limit freedoms but only in certain areas?

There are degrees of freedom, and the freedom of which I speak is true and total freedom, but it can only be achieved in a society of one.

 

[editec]

Philosophically speaking, accomodating any other person, (let along the needs of your society) results in a loss of freedom for every individual.

Even if you are the dictator of a group, the mere fact that you have to deal with that group's interpersonal dynamics results in a loss of absolute freedom.

When most people talk about "freedom", what they really mean is THEIR tiny little version of freedom.


Robinson Crusoe had something approaching real freedom right up until the moment that his man Friday showed up.

Only the dead are truly free, folks.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Death of American freedom started 100 years ago with creeping more and more government.
Now it's gotten so large we have government taking care of us from the cradle to the grave and it's bankrupting us.

At the time The Constitution was signed, the population of the US WAS 3,929,214. The 2011 Census reports total population now sits at 308,745,538. How did people live 221 years ago as opposed to how we live today? Your analysis is silly. The government doesn't "take care" of us to the point THAT is what is bankrupting us. It takes care of us because of the massive explosion in humanity and the rapid demand for all those things everyone takes for granted as being a "right" these days, such as electricity and high speed communication. Or would you prefer that you had to ask your neighbor if you could plug into his wall outlets to light your home or borrow money from him to pay your own light bill. Just tossing out some very obvious examples as to why over the last two centuries regulations have been necessary, without which people would be running amok.

Are there some that either aren't needed or should be scaled back? Of course. I just hate blanket statements that ignore the obvious.

 

[MaggieMae]

Everyone speaks as though we actually have freedom, and have even been free for quite some time now. But in reality we gave up our freedom when we started living together in societies. It was subtle at first, when neighbors miles apart from one another started putting up fences, that is when we needed laws deciding how we are going to live with one another. At that moment true freedom ended.

Now as more and more people crowd together and their interaction with one another increase more and more laws must be made so we can live peaceably with each other. Each law restricts our freedom.

Now we fight with each other over whose freedom will be eliminated next in the form of a brand new law. Every session congress goes to work, and every session they pass laws. If they did not pass laws they would not have a job. If we keep sending them back to Washington they will keep passing laws that limit our freedom even more.

The first act of civilization was to declare freedom dead.

On the contrary, without society and the incumbant laws and regulation, there can be no individual freedom.

Everything about society is the orchestration of the efforts of the many to ease the strain of survival and increase the individual's ability to conduct himself in a manner that is free of fear and directed by reason and spitituality.

Without Society and the incumbant laws and regulation, we are subjects to the whims of those who are more strong or malevolent among us. Without society, there can be no freedom.

The charachteristics of the society in which we we live can enhance or deprive freedoms relative to the ideal, but, absent society, there is no freedom.

This is why those who seek to dominate through fear and terror seek first to dismantle society or choose to operate in areas already devoid of functioning social structures.

Well said.

 

[MaggieMae]

Look at it this way...

If you lived by yourself in the middle of nowhere you would have complete freedom to do what ever you want. You could literally do anything. Hunt your own food when and whatever it happens to be. Unlike in society where we have hunting and fishing seasons to restrict our freedom.

Your house could be any size and built anywhere. Unlike in society where we have building codes and zoning laws restricting our freedom.

Living in the middle of nowhere you could grow anything you want, and as much or less of it as you wish. There would be no laws to retrict any aspect of that.

When you introduce others to this scenario you start dealing with a society where others freedoms begin to overlap, and when that happens laws must be introduced to keep the peace, and when that happens you start trading freedom for peace among one another.

When a group of people get together to live in a society laws are enacted and leaders are chosen. At this point one person becomes more important than the others and now we have a hierarchy along fading freedoms all in the name of co-existance.

All I'm saying is that we speak of limiting freedoms as if it our freedoms are under attack. Business rails against regulation claiming they want a free market. The people rail against and argue laws such as the Patriot act claiming a restiction of freedom. Groups of people speak of the freedom to marry whom ever they want claiming they have the freedom to do so. On and on it goes, but this is the sacrifice for living in a society, the limiting of freedoms. Is the limiting of freedoms good or bad? it depends on what side of the limiting your on. Every law is a restriction of freedom to someone, our government argues over whose freedom gets restricted, and the more time they spend in session the more laws get passed and the more freedoms get restricted.

I know of no one who would prefer to live like cavemen these days, except perhaps people seeking complete escapism over suicide. Even the Neanderthal died off because the Cromagnon brain was higher developed and they figured out that hunting in groups was much safer and provided more food for their families and entire tribes (societies). The Neanderthal never got it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Death of American freedom started 100 years ago with creeping more and more government.
Now it's gotten so large we have government taking care of us from the cradle to the grave and it's bankrupting us.

The good news, in theory at least, is that Americans have a say when it comes to the allotted freedom levels of a given period. The problem is that the lions share of a politicians salary is what he spreads around keeping his job and that part is not paid for by We, The People, so technically they're not working for for the voters, although the voters play a role in who gets the job.

I'm not saying the tax payers should foot the bill for elections, I'm saying the tax code is a major source of corruption in American politics and ground up reform of our tax code must be made THE priority.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. Fair taxes, appropriate regulation.

 

[MaggieMae]

Philosophically speaking, accomodating any other person, (let along the needs of your society) results in a loss of freedom for every individual.

Even if you are the dictator of a group, the mere fact that you have to deal with that group's interpersonal dynamics results in a loss of absolute freedom.

When most people talk about "freedom", what they really mean is THEIR tiny little version of freedom.


Robinson Crusoe had something approaching real freedom right up until the moment that his man Friday showed up.

Only the dead are truly free, folks.

I hope not even then. I've got a lot of catching up to do with some dead folks. On the other hand, if you believe in reincarnation, you might return as a cow headed for slaughter, or worse, a member of the opposing political ideology that you held while living this life.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Everyone speaks as though we actually have freedom, and have even been free for quite some time now. But in reality we gave up our freedom when we started living together in societies. It was subtle at first, when neighbors miles apart from one another started putting up fences, that is when we needed laws deciding how we are going to live with one another. At that moment true freedom ended.

Now as more and more people crowd together and their interaction with one another increase more and more laws must be made so we can live peaceably with each other. Each law restricts our freedom.

Now we fight with each other over whose freedom will be eliminated next in the form of a brand new law. Every session congress goes to work, and every session they pass laws. If they did not pass laws they would not have a job. If we keep sending them back to Washington they will keep passing laws that limit our freedom even more.

The first act of civilization was to declare freedom dead.

On the contrary, without society and the incumbant laws and regulation, there can be no individual freedom.

Everything about society is the orchestration of the efforts of the many to ease the strain of survival and increase the individual's ability to conduct himself in a manner that is free of fear and directed by reason and spitituality.

Without Society and the incumbant laws and regulation, we are subjects to the whims of those who are more strong or malevolent among us. Without society, there can be no freedom.

The charachteristics of the society in which we we live can enhance or deprive freedoms relative to the ideal, but, absent society, there is no freedom.

This is why those who seek to dominate through fear and terror seek first to dismantle society or choose to operate in areas already devoid of functioning social structures.

There is a certain freedom in feeding ones self by means of a craft and by virtue of it obtaining 'leisure time'. Wide spread leisure time with minimal education is a new tool for evolution to play with. Should be an interesting 500 years coming up.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Good post code1211,

How I wish some of these people would study the world and human history before they spew silly crap like this OP.

He seems to know nothing about human kind and reality

You have to take it in the context delivered - it's an example to make a point, and one that needs to be addressed. Kudos to the O/P.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Look at it this way...

If you lived by yourself in the middle of nowhere you would have complete freedom to do what ever you want. You could literally do anything. Hunt your own food when and whatever it happens to be. Unlike in society where we have hunting and fishing seasons to restrict our freedom.

Your house could be any size and built anywhere. Unlike in society where we have building codes and zoning laws restricting our freedom.

Living in the middle of nowhere you could grow anything you want, and as much or less of it as you wish. There would be no laws to retrict any aspect of that.

When you introduce others to this scenario you start dealing with a society where others freedoms begin to overlap, and when that happens laws must be introduced to keep the peace, and when that happens you start trading freedom for peace among one another.

When a group of people get together to live in a society laws are enacted and leaders are chosen. At this point one person becomes more important than the others and now we have a hierarchy along fading freedoms all in the name of co-existance.

All I'm saying is that we speak of limiting freedoms as if it our freedoms are under attack. Business rails against regulation claiming they want a free market. The people rail against and argue laws such as the Patriot act claiming a restiction of freedom. Groups of people speak of the freedom to marry whom ever they want claiming they have the freedom to do so. On and on it goes, but this is the sacrifice for living in a society, the limiting of freedoms. Is the limiting of freedoms good or bad? it depends on what side of the limiting your on. Every law is a restriction of freedom to someone, our government argues over whose freedom gets restricted, and the more time they spend in session the more laws get passed and the more freedoms get restricted.

We don't have hunting and fishing seasons 'to restrict our freedoms' anymore than we have oil companies bid for drilling permits to restrict their freedoms. We have them to properly manage and share the resources of this world both with each other and with our children.

THAT, is the role of government.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Look at it this way...

If you lived by yourself in the middle of nowhere you would have complete freedom to do what ever you want. You could literally do anything. Hunt your own food when and whatever it happens to be. Unlike in society where we have hunting and fishing seasons to restrict our freedom.

Your house could be any size and built anywhere. Unlike in society where we have building codes and zoning laws restricting our freedom.

Living in the middle of nowhere you could grow anything you want, and as much or less of it as you wish. There would be no laws to retrict any aspect of that.

When you introduce others to this scenario you start dealing with a society where others freedoms begin to overlap, and when that happens laws must be introduced to keep the peace, and when that happens you start trading freedom for peace among one another.

When a group of people get together to live in a society laws are enacted and leaders are chosen. At this point one person becomes more important than the others and now we have a hierarchy along fading freedoms all in the name of co-existance.

All I'm saying is that we speak of limiting freedoms as if it our freedoms are under attack. Business rails against regulation claiming they want a free market. The people rail against and argue laws such as the Patriot act claiming a restiction of freedom. Groups of people speak of the freedom to marry whom ever they want claiming they have the freedom to do so. On and on it goes, but this is the sacrifice for living in a society, the limiting of freedoms. Is the limiting of freedoms good or bad? it depends on what side of the limiting your on. Every law is a restriction of freedom to someone, our government argues over whose freedom gets restricted, and the more time they spend in session the more laws get passed and the more freedoms get restricted.

I know of no one who would prefer to live like cavemen these days, except perhaps people seeking complete escapism over suicide. Even the Neanderthal died off because the Cromagnon brain was higher developed and they figured out that hunting in groups was much safer and provided more food for their families and entire tribes (societies). The Neanderthal never got it.

I've seen at least one T.V. program that claims evidence that our Neanderthal cousins did form limited societies and even practiced group worship, but that's not the point... The point is how much better life is because of societal bonds in spite of their cost.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everyone speaks as though we actually have freedom, and have even been free for quite some time now. But in reality we gave up our freedom when we started living together in societies. It was subtle at first, when neighbors miles apart from one another started putting up fences, that is when we needed laws deciding how we are going to live with one another. At that moment true freedom ended.

Now as more and more people crowd together and their interaction with one another increase more and more laws must be made so we can live peaceably with each other. Each law restricts our freedom.

Now we fight with each other over whose freedom will be eliminated next in the form of a brand new law. Every session congress goes to work, and every session they pass laws. If they did not pass laws they would not have a job. If we keep sending them back to Washington they will keep passing laws that limit our freedom even more.

The first act of civilization was to declare freedom dead.

On the contrary, without society and the incumbant laws and regulation, there can be no individual freedom.

Everything about society is the orchestration of the efforts of the many to ease the strain of survival and increase the individual's ability to conduct himself in a manner that is free of fear and directed by reason and spitituality.

Without Society and the incumbant laws and regulation, we are subjects to the whims of those who are more strong or malevolent among us. Without society, there can be no freedom.

The charachteristics of the society in which we we live can enhance or deprive freedoms relative to the ideal, but, absent society, there is no freedom.

This is why those who seek to dominate through fear and terror seek first to dismantle society or choose to operate in areas already devoid of functioning social structures.

Bull fucking shit.

Freedom does not come from society, it comes from people insisting they have it. All society can do is take it away of we let them.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Everyone speaks as though we actually have freedom, and have even been free for quite some time now. But in reality we gave up our freedom when we started living together in societies. It was subtle at first, when neighbors miles apart from one another started putting up fences, that is when we needed laws deciding how we are going to live with one another. At that moment true freedom ended.

Now as more and more people crowd together and their interaction with one another increase more and more laws must be made so we can live peaceably with each other. Each law restricts our freedom.

Now we fight with each other over whose freedom will be eliminated next in the form of a brand new law. Every session congress goes to work, and every session they pass laws. If they did not pass laws they would not have a job. If we keep sending them back to Washington they will keep passing laws that limit our freedom even more.

The first act of civilization was to declare freedom dead.

On the contrary, without society and the incumbant laws and regulation, there can be no individual freedom.

Everything about society is the orchestration of the efforts of the many to ease the strain of survival and increase the individual's ability to conduct himself in a manner that is free of fear and directed by reason and spitituality.

Without Society and the incumbant laws and regulation, we are subjects to the whims of those who are more strong or malevolent among us. Without society, there can be no freedom.

The charachteristics of the society in which we we live can enhance or deprive freedoms relative to the ideal, but, absent society, there is no freedom.

This is why those who seek to dominate through fear and terror seek first to dismantle society or choose to operate in areas already devoid of functioning social structures.

From your position may I conclude that you are a liberal and only through structure and regulation may society grow and thrive? You have illustrated my point for me when you speak of those strongerer and more malevolent. The stronger and malevolent are the rich and big business and regulation is put into place to protect us from them. When business complains of too much regulation they decry their lack of freedom, should we stand our ground against them? and what of the ramifications of such actions? are we prepared for them.

It would seem those on the right want to claim lack of freedom to do what they want in the financial arena, and then claim that too much freedom in the social arena is destroying America. The Left want to regulate the financial arena claiming consumer protection limiting the freedom of business, and then champion social freedom to the max claiming as a free society it is only right. Which is correct, they both want to limit freedoms but only in certain areas?

There are degrees of freedom, and the freedom of which I speak is true and total freedom, but it can only be achieved in a society of one.

That being said, where do WE go from here, being unalterably linked to each other as we are in the 21st century?

I wonder how they feel about fair taxes and appropriate regulation?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Democracy has no automatic setting.

It takes the people keeping informed and being able to see whos lying to them.

There is no auto setting for capitalism either.

It will devolve into one guy owning everything.

That is why the game monopoly was invented so that children could learn for themselves how unrestrained capitalism works out in the end.

Some never learned the lesson.

You occasionally show flashes of intelligence. Then you blow it.

FYI, Monopoly is not about capitalism, it is about real estate and landlords.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good post code1211,

How I wish some of these people would study the world and human history before they spew silly crap like this OP.

He seems to know nothing about human kind and reality

The trick is to limit the intrusion of the society into the life of the individual.

Society should protect the integrity of the individual. The individual should contribute to the cohesion of the society.

If the society begins to deprive certain of its number of prevailing rights or responsibilities and to the extent that this happens, society has robbed the individual of the freedom that has been promised. Freedom is not a gift recieved from another. It is a harmony shared in a labor of love.

In the real world, the existance of law and the justice implied by the law is the web that holds society together. When leadership in the society departs from law, as our government seems to have been doing for at least the last 30 years, all of us are watching the freedoms we think we posess disappear.

We are frogs in water boiling.

We are completely free do do what we whatever we want. Other people (society) can only punish us for doing what they don't approve of.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Democracy has no automatic setting.

It takes the people keeping informed and being able to see whos lying to them.

There is no auto setting for capitalism either.

It will devolve into one guy owning everything.

That is why the game monopoly was invented so that children could learn for themselves how unrestrained capitalism works out in the end.

Some never learned the lesson.

You occasionally show flashes of intelligence. Then you blow it.

FYI, Monopoly is not about capitalism, it is about real estate and landlords.

Kind of a matter of a micro -vs- a macro way of looking at that game with neither view being 'wrong', if you ask me.

Just saying...​

 

[code1211]

Everyone speaks as though we actually have freedom, and have even been free for quite some time now. But in reality we gave up our freedom when we started living together in societies. It was subtle at first, when neighbors miles apart from one another started putting up fences, that is when we needed laws deciding how we are going to live with one another. At that moment true freedom ended.

Now as more and more people crowd together and their interaction with one another increase more and more laws must be made so we can live peaceably with each other. Each law restricts our freedom.

Now we fight with each other over whose freedom will be eliminated next in the form of a brand new law. Every session congress goes to work, and every session they pass laws. If they did not pass laws they would not have a job. If we keep sending them back to Washington they will keep passing laws that limit our freedom even more.

The first act of civilization was to declare freedom dead.

On the contrary, without society and the incumbant laws and regulation, there can be no individual freedom.

Everything about society is the orchestration of the efforts of the many to ease the strain of survival and increase the individual's ability to conduct himself in a manner that is free of fear and directed by reason and spitituality.

Without Society and the incumbant laws and regulation, we are subjects to the whims of those who are more strong or malevolent among us. Without society, there can be no freedom.

The charachteristics of the society in which we we live can enhance or deprive freedoms relative to the ideal, but, absent society, there is no freedom.

This is why those who seek to dominate through fear and terror seek first to dismantle society or choose to operate in areas already devoid of functioning social structures.

From your position may I conclude that you are a liberal and only through structure and regulation may society grow and thrive? You have illustrated my point for me when you speak of those strongerer and more malevolent. The stronger and malevolent are the rich and big business and regulation is put into place to protect us from them. When business complains of too much regulation they decry their lack of freedom, should we stand our ground against them? and what of the ramifications of such actions? are we prepared for them.

It would seem those on the right want to claim lack of freedom to do what they want in the financial arena, and then claim that too much freedom in the social arena is destroying America. The Left want to regulate the financial arena claiming consumer protection limiting the freedom of business, and then champion social freedom to the max claiming as a free society it is only right. Which is correct, they both want to limit freedoms but only in certain areas?

There are degrees of freedom, and the freedom of which I speak is true and total freedom, but it can only be achieved in a society of one.

You are, of course, free to conclude whatever you like.

It's an interesting but pointless phiosophical consideration to wonder if one is free if one is completely alone. Free from what?

Freedom implies that subjegation is possible if not imminent. You say that the "stronger and the malevolent" are the rich and big business. I don't see that. I see the guy who bullies those around him with impunity due to his strength as the strong and the melevolent as those who plot to do harm to others with malevolence. Call me literal.

The Rich are not by definition either of these. A gifted artist or performer may very well be rich and not be either a bully or dominating of others. Big business, by its nature must be competitive, but being a successful competitior does not imply or demand cheating. In many examples, Microsoft being a good one, it happens, but it is not demanded.

I see freedom as a much more individual thing than you seem to. I just want to be left alone. I don't particularly like government as it intrudes into my life, takes my money to squander pointlessly or engineers losers and winners.

However, a cursory examination of the parts of the world where a thriving social structure is absent reveals immediately that society promotes individual freedoms. Our Bill of Rights would be unitelligible in Somolia. Their tribal retribution would be quickly snuffed out here.

I am very fortunate in that I have a job that I enjoy, I'm free from debt, unaffected for the most part by the economy and FREE to pursue those things that are luxury items to most in the world. It could change tomorrow and I know it. For now, though, by my definition, I am comfortable and FREE to do as I please within the life that is enjoyable to me.

Before i was married, had a decent job or committments of time to the community, my actions were constrained although on the face of things, I was more free. As with Jacob Marley, we forge our own chains and with a little planning, they join us to those things that we love.

"Nuns fret not at their convent's narrow cell."

 

[sparky]

Just what is freedom?

And how about that American Dream? Just what's that all about?

I'll wager that most of you will forward diverse answers

But what bums me out the most is those of you who can't get past the anecdotal aspects of defining it

it ain't about your sorry a*s

You people call everyone a liberal, a lefty who might equate freedom to collectivism, while forgetting that divided we fall addage that's true to the bone about our rise to greatness as Americans , and as a country

libertarian traitors!

 

[code1211]

Everyone speaks as though we actually have freedom, and have even been free for quite some time now. But in reality we gave up our freedom when we started living together in societies. It was subtle at first, when neighbors miles apart from one another started putting up fences, that is when we needed laws deciding how we are going to live with one another. At that moment true freedom ended.

Now as more and more people crowd together and their interaction with one another increase more and more laws must be made so we can live peaceably with each other. Each law restricts our freedom.

Now we fight with each other over whose freedom will be eliminated next in the form of a brand new law. Every session congress goes to work, and every session they pass laws. If they did not pass laws they would not have a job. If we keep sending them back to Washington they will keep passing laws that limit our freedom even more.

The first act of civilization was to declare freedom dead.

On the contrary, without society and the incumbant laws and regulation, there can be no individual freedom.

Everything about society is the orchestration of the efforts of the many to ease the strain of survival and increase the individual's ability to conduct himself in a manner that is free of fear and directed by reason and spitituality.

Without Society and the incumbant laws and regulation, we are subjects to the whims of those who are more strong or malevolent among us. Without society, there can be no freedom.

The charachteristics of the society in which we we live can enhance or deprive freedoms relative to the ideal, but, absent society, there is no freedom.

This is why those who seek to dominate through fear and terror seek first to dismantle society or choose to operate in areas already devoid of functioning social structures.

Bull fucking shit.

Freedom does not come from society, it comes from people insisting they have it. All society can do is take it away of we let them.

Perhaps I don't understand your vision of Freedom. Is it more along the lines of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" or more along the lines of running naked through the wilderness hiding from bears eating nuts and roots?

My understanding of freedom accepts social norms and allows me to fend for myself taking advantage of the infrastructure around me while enjoying the ability to communicate instantly world wide and yet pull the plug and be isolated at my own discretion.

Being able to hit a golf ball some times is a good benny, too.

Without society, there is no internet, no safe home for me to retreat to and no golf course. There's also no restaurant food, no 300C and no hospital if I get sick.

In what ways can you enjoy freedom without society? It seems pretty close to the pioneers freezing in the winter, sweating in the summer, working every waking moment and constantly dirty and stinking with rotting teeth and short lives.

Is that your vision of freedom?

 

[sparky]

I rest my case...