No Such thing as Freedom

[G.T.]

If you read any literature regarding Conspiracy Theories, they all seem to have one thing in common: they theorize that Language is used to manipulate the masses. Ok, but those are writers taking advantage of gullible people THROUGH Language to sell their books. Anyways, to my point though:

Freedom. I was pondering this the other evening and I wanted to share. I may have been showering, I may have been on the toilet or I may have been pretending to listen to someone's boring conversation at the time. I've come to the conclusion that Freedom does not and cannot exist to its full extent.

I pondered this from two angles: Mankind and God. For all intents and purposes, I used the Christian God.

God: God gave Man free-will, but not the freedom to act on it. He provided a set of laws, or Commandments and in breaking those you pay a price. Repentance. Paying a price is the antithesis of freedom; thus, God's "way" does NOT provide free-will but simply a will to "do whatever you want, but PAY the consequences." Pay/Consequence = Not free.

Man: Primitive man: Free, yes? No. Think strength, and through that strength a hierarchy. You can, at any time, take the pack-leader's woman behind the bushes at your will, but then, you have the consequences. A spiked tree-branch to the facial structure? A brutal, to-the-death fist fight with the possibility of his incisors cutting into your Arteries?

Modern man? America, a free Country? Laws are the antithesis of free. They're a consequence for acting a certain way, and since some of your actions have a consequence, or a price, you are NOT free.



This enlightenment was not to say that Freedom is, or should, even be possible. But.................it is shear PROOF that infringement upon our freedoms is necessary for Mankind to co-exist with one-another.

The ideals of America were phony, you see. We are not a "free" country, but I suppose one could argue we were "as free as possible, or close to it." The argument of politics in America begins where each-side feels a Freedom is necessary to forfeit, such as Killing, Stealing, Privacy, etc. Interesting, but we're not and never were "free."

-Agree, or disagree?

 

[Big Black Dog]

I'd like to comment on this post but unfortunately I am not free to do so.

 

[G.T.]

I'd like to comment on this post but unfortunately I am not free to do so.

 

[Liberty]

Modern American is the #11 most free society according to some study I read somewhere. Canada was #10. Haha.

No though, freedom and liberty are merely ways to describe a society where the individual can do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on the liberty of someone else. It's that simple. That is where the rule of law comes in, and that is where corruption sets in. It's sad but human nature.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I]YouTube - The Philosophy of Liberty[/ame]

describes it well enough.

 

[MIPS]

If you read any literature regarding Conspiracy Theories, they all seem to have one thing in common: they theorize that Language is used to manipulate the masses. Ok, but those are writers taking advantage of gullible people THROUGH Language to sell their books. Anyways, to my point though:

Freedom. I was pondering this the other evening and I wanted to share. I may have been showering, I may have been on the toilet or I may have been pretending to listen to someone's boring conversation at the time. I've come to the conclusion that Freedom does not and cannot exist to its full extent.

I pondered this from two angles: Mankind and God. For all intents and purposes, I used the Christian God.

God: God gave Man free-will, but not the freedom to act on it. He provided a set of laws, or Commandments and in breaking those you pay a price. Repentance. Paying a price is the antithesis of freedom; thus, God's "way" does NOT provide free-will but simply a will to "do whatever you want, but PAY the consequences." Pay/Consequence = Not free.

Man: Primitive man: Free, yes? No. Think strength, and through that strength a hierarchy. You can, at any time, take the pack-leader's woman behind the bushes at your will, but then, you have the consequences. A spiked tree-branch to the facial structure? A brutal, to-the-death fist fight with the possibility of his incisors cutting into your Arteries?

Modern man? America, a free Country? Laws are the antithesis of free. They're a consequence for acting a certain way, and since some of your actions have a consequence, or a price, you are NOT free.



This enlightenment was not to say that Freedom is, or should, even be possible. But.................it is shear PROOF that infringement upon our freedoms is necessary for Mankind to co-exist with one-another.

The ideals of America were phony, you see. We are not a "free" country, but I suppose one could argue we were "as free as possible, or close to it." The argument of politics in America begins where each-side feels a Freedom is necessary to forfeit, such as Killing, Stealing, Privacy, etc. Interesting, but we're not and never were "free."

-Agree, or disagree?

This is stating the obvious don't you think? Of course human beings are not free to live without enduring the consequences of their actions, that would be accounted as "being free from reality", the laws of "god" or man are no different in this regard, e.g. you are perfectly free to jump off a cliff you are however not free from the effects of gravity.

Secondly the very reason that humans conceived the institution of government was to protect their life, liberty and property from violation by other human beings, thus civil society recognizes that the individuals freedom is limited by the freedom of others, e.g. you are free to jump off a cliff, you are not free to throw someone else off it against their will without suffering the consequences imposed by society and by "god".

 

[G.T.]

This is stating the obvious don't you think? Of course human beings are not free to live without enduring the consequences of their actions, that would be accounted as "being free from reality", the laws of "god" or man are no different in this regard, e.g. you are perfectly free to jump off a cliff you are however not free from the effects of gravity.

Secondly the very reason that humans conceived the institution of government was to protect their life, liberty and property from violation by other human beings, thus civil society recognizes that the individuals freedom is limited by the freedom of others, e.g. you are free to jump off a cliff, you are not free to throw someone else off it against their will without suffering the consequences imposed by society and by "god".

Of course it's obvious, but that's besides the point. There are many platitudes, even within Liberty and Property, which are arguable and nuance. Also God, according to the Christian Bible, does not grant you free will. Or he does? It's another one of those weird Biblical contradictions that the writers didn't have the foresight to eliminate.

 

[Liberty]

This is stating the obvious don't you think? Of course human beings are not free to live without enduring the consequences of their actions, that would be accounted as "being free from reality", the laws of "god" or man are no different in this regard, e.g. you are perfectly free to jump off a cliff you are however not free from the effects of gravity.

Secondly the very reason that humans conceived the institution of government was to protect their life, liberty and property from violation by other human beings, thus civil society recognizes that the individuals freedom is limited by the freedom of others, e.g. you are free to jump off a cliff, you are not free to throw someone else off it against their will without suffering the consequences imposed by society and by "god".

Of course it's obvious, but that's besides the point. There are many platitudes, even within Liberty and Property, which are arguable and nuance. Also God, according to the Christian Bible, does not grant you free will. Or he does? It's another one of those weird Biblical contradictions that the writers didn't have the foresight to eliminate.

Do you consider freewill and natural law to be the same?

 

[G.T.]

Do you consider freewill and natural law to be the same?

I just feel that words have meaning and if your "will" tells you to do something.....but that something has a consequence, then it was not "free" will. Language is the basis for our communications and this Biblical inscription is contradictory.

Natural Law is a myth. It's somewhat based off of Homosapien thought and ideal and not always off of Nature's external properties themselves.

 

[Liberty]

Do you consider freewill and natural law to be the same?

I just feel that words have meaning and if your "will" tells you to do something.....but that something has a consequence, then it was not "free" will. Language is the basis for our communications and this Biblical inscription is contradictory.

Natural Law is a myth. It's somewhat based off of Homosapien thought and ideal and not always off of Nature's external properties themselves.

a myth? Natural Law and Hobbes/Locke were great visionaries, I suggest you read some of their work (especially Locke). But to adress this myth of yours, Natural Law is important because it defines that man's rights do not come from government, it comes naturally with being human whether that from God, the Moon, A raingod, or whatever is irrelevent. It is a great concept and one that I wish was taught in school. I cringe when I ask a teenager where their rights come from and they answer with "government". Your rights are natural. (a little off topic but this is the basis for a free society, and I will be the first to admit the USA has lost it's way horribly)

 

[G.T.]

a myth? Natural Law and Hobbes/Locke were great visionaries, I suggest you read some of their work (especially Locke). But to adress this myth of yours, Natural Law is important because it defines that man's rights do not come from government, it comes naturally with being human whether that from God, the Moon, A raingod, or whatever is irrelevent. It is a great concept and one that I wish was taught in school. I cringe when I ask a teenager where their rights come from and they answer with "government". Your rights are natural. (a little off topic but this is the basis for a free society, and I will be the first to admit the USA has lost it's way horribly)

I disagree. Natural Law was a man-made concept and not made by Nature; therefore, Man's Rights didn't "come from" God or the Moon or Naturally, they came from this man-made concept/interpretation of what MAN thinks should be a "right" of all. It's 110% man made and unnatural.

Natural Law, had it been provided through Nature, would have existed and been understood before the sentience of man; however, killing is and always will be a part of Nature and the food-chain is more Natural Law than-is the illegality of Murder and the "right" to live.

 

[Liberty]

a myth? Natural Law and Hobbes/Locke were great visionaries, I suggest you read some of their work (especially Locke). But to adress this myth of yours, Natural Law is important because it defines that man's rights do not come from government, it comes naturally with being human whether that from God, the Moon, A raingod, or whatever is irrelevent. It is a great concept and one that I wish was taught in school. I cringe when I ask a teenager where their rights come from and they answer with "government". Your rights are natural. (a little off topic but this is the basis for a free society, and I will be the first to admit the USA has lost it's way horribly)

I disagree. Natural Law was a man-made concept and not made by Nature; therefore, Man's Rights didn't "come from" God or the Moon or Naturally, they came from this man-made concept/interpretation of what MAN thinks should be a "right" of all. It's 110% man made and unnatural.

Natural Law, had it been provided through Nature, would have existed and been understood before the sentience of man; however, killing is and always will be a part of Nature and the food-chain is more Natural Law than-is the illegality of Murder and the "right" to live.

I agree with you before you talk about killing. It WAS invented, it was invented to insure that the people would understand that their right to live the way they want to was not given by another human being (maybe the parents). Rights come from existence. And that is a very powerful idea, and one i subscribe to.

 

[G.T.]

I agree with you before you talk about killing. It WAS invented, it was invented to insure that the people would understand that their right to live the way they want to was not given by another human being (maybe the parents). Rights come from existence. And that is a very powerful idea, and one i subscribe to.

I agree with the concept of them being inalienable, but they didn't come from existence, they came from Man's interpretation of "how Society should be." Existence didn't give you any rights, a structured society did. Without Laws (man made and man enforced), your rights are pretty limited to a man who's Bigger and Hungrier than you are.

 

[Liberty]

I agree with you before you talk about killing. It WAS invented, it was invented to insure that the people would understand that their right to live the way they want to was not given by another human being (maybe the parents). Rights come from existence. And that is a very powerful idea, and one i subscribe to.

I agree with the concept of them being inalienable, but they didn't come from existence, they came from Man's interpretation of "how Society should be." Existence didn't give you any rights, a structured society did. Without Laws (man made and man enforced), your rights are pretty limited to a man who's Bigger and Hungrier than you are.

government can enforce your natural rights if mandated by the masses, NOT provide them.
In a free society.

 

[G.T.]

government can enforce your natural rights if mandated by the masses, NOT provide them.
In a free society.

Natural Rights are man made and so the name is self-contradictory. Also, we already both agreed that free society does not exist.

 

[Liberty]

government can enforce your natural rights if mandated by the masses, NOT provide them.
In a free society.

Natural Rights are man made and so the name is self-contradictory. Also, we already both agreed that free society does not exist.

it almost did, but not anymore.

 

[G.T.]

government can enforce your natural rights if mandated by the masses, NOT provide them.
In a free society.

Natural Rights are man made and so the name is self-contradictory. Also, we already both agreed that free society does not exist.

it almost did, but not anymore.

No, the closest we came was our primitive selves. "Free" society is a lawless one, so long as words have meaning. Remember, free is the antithesis of consequence.

 

[Liberty]

Natural Rights are man made and so the name is self-contradictory. Also, we already both agreed that free society does not exist.

it almost did, but not anymore.

No, the closest we came was our primitive selves. "Free" society is a lawless one, so long as words have meaning. Remember, free is the antithesis of consequence.

a state of anarchy is not a free society. a free society requires rule of law.

 

[G.T.]

a state of anarchy is not a free society. a free society requires rule of law.

No, a free society cannot exist. A lawless society is not free one, and neither is a lawful one. Our species cannot coexist if it's perfectly free.

 

[ihopehefails]

a state of anarchy is not a free society. a free society requires rule of law.

No, a free society cannot exist. A lawless society is not free one, and neither is a lawful one. Our species cannot coexist if it's perfectly free.

Just to add my two cents into this. No group of people can live together without an established code of conduct. This can either come from the self-restraint of morality and ethics or from a ruler. A free society can only function if human beings obeyed their conscience or were perfect but that is not the case. This is why law is easier to have than morality because law is not derived from the pursuit of your conscience but the result of someone pursing their ambition for power thus born of our evil.

Its like self-restraint in a free society is the good part of our nature while the forced restraint of law is the evil part of our nature. As long as man is both good and evil we will always have freedom and law in our society. When man gets rid of evil we will never have any need for law.

 

[G.T.]

a state of anarchy is not a free society. a free society requires rule of law.

No, a free society cannot exist. A lawless society is not free one, and neither is a lawful one. Our species cannot coexist if it's perfectly free.

Just to add my two cents into this. No group of people can live together without an established code of conduct. This can either come from the self-restraint of morality and ethics or from a ruler. A free society can only function if human beings obeyed their conscience or were perfect but that is not the case. This is why law is easier to have than morality because law is not derived from the pursuit of your conscience but the result of someone pursing their ambition for power thus born of our evil.

Its like self-restraint in a free society is the good part of our nature while the forced restraint of law is the evil part of our nature. As long as man is both good and evil we will always have freedom and law in our society. When man gets rid of evil we will never have any need for law.

I don't necessarily agree that uncivilized = evil to a full extent. All carnivores kill. Doesn't make them "evil," it's just that the Food Chain is TRUE "Natural" Law, if there is such a thing.