is freedom real

[Diuretic]

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.

You yearn for censorship of ideas? And yet you bang on about "universal truths" and how the individual is greater than the state? The approval or disapproval of ideas is the mark of the totalitarian.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

If you're married you aren't exactly "free" either. Society always hinders your "freedom". Government is just society with formalized rules….get used to it. Hopefully you live in a society with some of the better rules. You'll probably never be "truly free" until the day you die.

You yearn for censorship of ideas? And yet you bang on about "universal truths" and how the individual is greater than the state? The approval or disapproval of ideas is the mark of the totalitarian.

No, not for censorship of ideas… but for better ideas. Got any, genius?

 

[Diuretic]

If you're married you aren't exactly "free" either. Society always hinders your "freedom". Government is just society with formalized rules….get used to it. Hopefully you live in a society with some of the better rules. You'll probably never be "truly free" until the day you die.

Death, being a state of non-existence, can hardly be said to have any quality attached to it at all.

Government is more than society with formalised rules, government is oppression. It doesn't matter how benign it appears, it is oppression. Some are more oppressive than others, all are oppressive.

No, not for censorship of ideas… but for better ideas. Got any, genius?

Who decides which ideas are "better"?

 

[Larkinn]

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.

Not infrastructure, but the security of laws certainly stops. No government means no higher authority with the power to jail or reprimand certain individuals for actions. Once that happen it causes a ripple effect and once people can no longer be punished for their crimes, they figure why work forever to be successful? We can just go and take the money from that person over there who has all that stuff.

Government isn't society. People will be able to organise themselves without government.

Explain how exactly?

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.

Expand this please...I see no reason to believe this assertion as stated.

 

[Diuretic]

Not infrastructure, but the security of laws certainly stops. No government means no higher authority with the power to jail or reprimand certain individuals for actions. Once that happen it causes a ripple effect and once people can no longer be punished for their crimes, they figure why work forever to be successful? We can just go and take the money from that person over there who has all that stuff.

No government does mean no higher authority, but it doesn't mean that there isn't security for individuals, it's just that there have to be different ways of achieving it.

Government isn't society. People will be able to organise themselves without government.

Explain how exactly?

I can't. I don't have the intellectual capacity to do so. I do think that there may be lots of ways for people to organise themselves without government though. Humans are highly inventive.

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.

Expand this please...I see no reason to believe this assertion as stated

Humans are social animals and we organise ourselves so that we get together and look after each other. When we were starting out in little hunting and gathering bands we - like other pack animals - paid obeisance to the alpha male in the group. What he said went. There was no concept of "rights" or "freedoms" in that state of humanity. Those alpha males morphed into Kings and Emperors but by then the idea of heredity had taken root and power was passed from father to son based on bloodline. Obeisance was expected and given. One person controlled everything. That gradually dissipated as humans reacted against that idea. We began to see self-government as desirable. Instead of being subjects to hereditary rulers we wanted to pick our own representatives. Even then we sometimes got a ruler instead of a representative. But we were prepared to put up with that as long as there was a nett benefit to us.

Now western societies are technologically advanced. The collectives known as "corporations" are, in many instances, more powerful and influential than governments. We'd be in trouble if corporations evaporated overnight but if government disappeared we'd be in less trouble. Of course government won't disappear overnight. Those who benefit from being in government will fight to keep their privilege. That being so government will react in a hostile manner to anyone or anything that threatens its continued existence, hence oppression. We do need government at the moment, we won't need it in the future and we should be planning to ensure government disappears from society. At some time in the future we simply won't need government. When that happens we will be as free as is humanly possible.

 

[Larkinn]

No government does mean no higher authority, but it doesn't mean that there isn't security for individuals, it's just that there have to be different ways of achieving it.

I really don't see how.

I can't. I don't have the intellectual capacity to do so. I do think that there may be lots of ways for people to organise themselves without government though. Humans are highly inventive.

Meh...it seems to me to be highly problematic to espouse a view which you have no idea how to implement, and is predicated on the assumption that it can be implemented at all.

Humans are social animals and we organise ourselves so that we get together and look after each other. When we were starting out in little hunting and gathering bands we - like other pack animals - paid obeisance to the alpha male in the group. What he said went. There was no concept of "rights" or "freedoms" in that state of humanity. Those alpha males morphed into Kings and Emperors but by then the idea of heredity had taken root and power was passed from father to son based on bloodline. Obeisance was expected and given. One person controlled everything. That gradually dissipated as humans reacted against that idea. We began to see self-government as desirable. Instead of being subjects to hereditary rulers we wanted to pick our own representatives. Even then we sometimes got a ruler instead of a representative. But we were prepared to put up with that as long as there was a nett benefit to us.

I agree, more or less, with your statements above.

Now western societies are technologically advanced. The collectives known as "corporations" are, in many instances, more powerful and influential than governments. We'd be in trouble if corporations evaporated overnight but if government disappeared we'd be in less trouble.

What makes you think that corporations are more important than government? If government disappeared we should have mass infighting. Those with weapons would take over and quickly set up their own form of government, or just steal as much as they wanted. If Corporations disappeared the effects would be purely economic...if government disappeared it would ripple throughout all of society and cause crime on a massive scale.

Of course government won't disappear overnight. Those who benefit from being in government will fight to keep their privilege. That being so government will react in a hostile manner to anyone or anything that threatens its continued existence, hence oppression. We do need government at the moment, we won't need it in the future and we should be planning to ensure government disappears from society. At some time in the future we simply won't need government. When that happens we will be as free as is humanly possible.

What exactly will change between now and the future?

 

[Diuretic]

No government does mean no higher authority, but it doesn't mean that there isn't security for individuals, it's just that there have to be different ways of achieving it.

I really don't see how

Not being able to see how it can be achieved doesn’t mean it can’t be achieved. If we thought like that we’d still be in caves.

I can't. I don't have the intellectual capacity to do so. I do think that there may be lots of ways for people to organise themselves without government though. Humans are highly inventive.

Meh...it seems to me to be highly problematic to espouse a view which you have no idea how to implement, and is predicated on the assumption that it can be implemented at all.

Hey at least I was honest!

But I wasn’t wrong.

I’ve put forward a hypothesis, that is I’ve asked a question to which I don’t know the answer. In other words I’ve done what humans do, think about something and wonder how to make it possible. What if Wilbur and Orville had listened their naysayers?

Now western societies are technologically advanced. The collectives known as "corporations" are, in many instances, more powerful and influential than governments. We'd be in trouble if corporations evaporated overnight but if government disappeared we'd be in less trouble.

What makes you think that corporations are more important than government? If government disappeared we should have mass infighting. Those with weapons would take over and quickly set up their own form of government, or just steal as much as they wanted. If Corporations disappeared the effects would be purely economic...if government disappeared it would ripple throughout all of society and cause crime on a massive scale.

I didn’t say corporations were more “important” than government, just that in many instances they have more power and influence.

I wonder about the view that without government we’d have mass infighting. What are the social controls that stop mass infighting now? I’m quite willing to concede the point but I’d like to examine it a bit more. I could well be wrong here but then I might have a clue or two.

As for the view that “those with weapons” would take over. I’m not advocating for disappearance of government at 5 pm on Friday. It would be a gradual process, humans are creatures of evolution, we’re much more comfortable with slow change than revolutionary change.

If corporations disappeared at 5 pm Friday we’d lose nearly all the goods and services we rely on to call ourselves civilised. Then you’d see some strife in society.

But of course I’m not calling for the end of corporations, just pointing out that we should be working towards ridding ourselves of government because government is oppression.

Of course government won't disappear overnight. Those who benefit from being in government will fight to keep their privilege. That being so government will react in a hostile manner to anyone or anything that threatens its continued existence, hence oppression. We do need government at the moment, we won't need it in the future and we should be planning to ensure government disappears from society. At some time in the future we simply won't need government. When that happens we will be as free as is humanly possible.

What exactly will change between now and the future?

If we don't act nothing will change. Those who benefit from the status quo don't want anything to change.

 

[Larkinn]

Not being able to see how it can be achieved doesn’t mean it can’t be achieved. If we thought like that we’d still be in caves.

Right...I'm not saying you are unequivocally wrong, merely that I see no reason to believe your assertions here. I guess when I see no evidence for something I think that it is a possibility, but probably quite unlikely.

I’ve put forward a hypothesis, that is I’ve asked a question to which I don’t know the answer. In other words I’ve done what humans do, think about something and wonder how to make it possible. What if Wilbur and Orville had listened their naysayers?

Hmm I was under the impression that you were saying it was definitely possible...you just had no idea how. I agree that its an interesting idea to think about, and no I have no idea how to do it either, and my impulse when I have no idea how to do something is to believe it is unlikely to happen. I also find it a bit more troubling to experiment with society than experimenting with airplanes. After all when societies fail, people die, when scientific experiments fail nobody dies...at least most of the time.

I didn’t say corporations were more “important” than government, just that in many instances they have more power and influence.

They do have more power and influence, but I think their disappearence would NOT cause as much harm as the disappearance of government.

I wonder about the view that without government we’d have mass infighting. What are the social controls that stop mass infighting now? I’m quite willing to concede the point but I’d like to examine it a bit more. I could well be wrong here but then I might have a clue or two.

I think there are two things who stop it. One is the deep sense of morality some people have. But I don't think that is anywhere near enough. I think we also need a fear of a higher authority. For an example of exactly what can happen see New Orleans after Katrina. People take advantage of situations when they can.

As for the view that “those with weapons” would take over. I’m not advocating for disappearance of government at 5 pm on Friday. It would be a gradual process, humans are creatures of evolution, we’re much more comfortable with slow change than revolutionary change.

Even if you do it slowly I don't see any reason to think that there won't be brutal violence for control.

If corporations disappeared at 5 pm Friday we’d lose nearly all the goods and services we rely on to call ourselves civilised. Then you’d see some strife in society.

There would be strife, but law would exist to put down the strife. Without government it would be a war of all against all.

But of course I’m not calling for the end of corporations, just pointing out that we should be working towards ridding ourselves of government because government is oppression.

It is, but I think its necessary opression.

If we don't act nothing will change. Those who benefit from the status quo don't want anything to change.

And what exactly is so terrible with the way things are now? Do you honestly feel so unfree? What exactly is it that makes you feel so bound at the moment?

 

[Diuretic]

It's an interesting exchange of ideas. I'm not proposing this is going to happen, just that it could happen. We're so used to the idea of government that we can't envisage a society without it.

The personal paradox for me is that I don't agree with small-government pundits like Grover whatisname who wants to drown government in the bathtub. Government is necessary right now and even though it's oppression in action it's required. In many ways government is a bulwark against the sort of unrestrained capitalism and corporatism that Grover whatisname wants. I'm opposed to that so it's a choice of the lesser evil I suppose.

Who knows what will happen in two hundred years? That's a long time in human history and much can change. But, as I said, an interesting exchange. But I'm still thinking about the original question and I still firmly believe that freedom, right now, is illusory. We're not free.

 

[Larkinn]

It's an interesting exchange of ideas. I'm not proposing this is going to happen, just that it could happen. We're so used to the idea of government that we can't envisage a society without it.

The personal paradox for me is that I don't agree with small-government pundits like Grover whatisname who wants to drown government in the bathtub. Government is necessary right now and even though it's oppression in action it's required. In many ways government is a bulwark against the sort of unrestrained capitalism and corporatism that Grover whatisname wants. I'm opposed to that so it's a choice of the lesser evil I suppose.

Who knows what will happen in two hundred years? That's a long time in human history and much can change. But, as I said, an interesting exchange.

Well I've spent most of my time shooting down your theories, so I suppose I'll give you some of my own.

I think that government is a necessary evil. We need laws, and we need a centralized authority to keep control or else society will become a Hobbesian nightmare, quickly followed by a new government which will probably suck. Besides, as you point out, government helps restrain capitalism. If we were to ever get to a non-government state, capitalism would have to be long gone.

I think the only real way a society with no government could function would be if it was incredibly small and everyone knows each other (i.e. individuals have a reason not to attack others and steal goods), and the individuals need to be hand-picked. There are places where this does happen (hippie communies mostly), and for the most part they work, but I can't see a full fledged society working like this...ever.

Besides that I don't subscribe to the Western idea that we only have rights from things, we don't have rights to anything. I prefer a combination of Eastern and Western ideals in which we have rights from governmental interference, i.e. we have freedom of speech, assembly, etc, etc, but we also have rights to things, such as healthcare, shelter, and food. As the world population is growing that will be harder and harder to ensure, but it is possible in at least some socieities.

But who knows...and yes t'was an interesting exchange.

 

[Diuretic]

If we were to ever get to a non-government state, capitalism would have to be long gone.

Exactly.

From Adam Smith's idea of enlightened self interest we've moved to the corporatist idea of unenlightened self-interest, that is, greed. Advanced capitalism is now about avarice which benefits a privileged few and not enlightened self-interest which benefits all.

The existence of government is the only restraining factor on advanced capitalism, without government capitalism would consume itself. Both have to be dismantled for humanity to have any chance of continuing to exist into the far future.

No government, no advanced capitalism, no corporate avarice, no pre-determined winners and losers, no competition for the sake of competition. Instead without government and without advanced capitalism there would be a need for co-operation the result would be true freedom for humanity.

 

[MD_Dotson]

How did you come up with this silly question?

If you cannot recognize the difference of freedom found between a democracy vs. a totalitarian government there is no hope for you. You cannot make the original premise that they all have "equal freedom" because they don't.

Between the two women in the democracy, both had the freedom and choice to work and save up for a plane ticket. One did, one didn't. Each woman had the personal freedom to make her personal choices in dealing with a free market. If one has limited resources, she has the choice to improve her resources or not. Both are free to control their own work/travel decisions.

In a totalitarian government both women could only travel with the permission of the government. To travel or not to travel totally depended on someone else's permission, not their own personal decisions. It didn't matter if they had the money or not. They have no personal control whatsoever about their travel decisions and thus are not free.

Hope that helps you.

I agree, but I think the writer was looking for a more philisophical thought. Freedom is what you beleive freedom is for you. America is the greatest free world because we have freedom combined with rights. Our rights are what gives us absolute freedom.

 

[Diuretic]

I agree, but I think the writer was looking for a more philisophical thought. Freedom is what you beleive freedom is for you. America is the greatest free world because we have freedom combined with rights. Our rights are what gives us absolute freedom.

This is what I mean by the illusion of freedom.