No Such thing as Freedom

[ihopehefails]

As long as man is both good and evil we will always have freedom and law in our society.

Can't have both.

But we do have both. Which is why there is freedom and law.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

It clearly does exist since it happened.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

To say that natural law doesn't exist is like saying the laws of physics don't exist yet we see the sun rise every day. Its rising and falling has some negative effect somewhere on this earth but the overall effect is a balanced ecosystem that if you were to try to interfere with it would reek havoc with that eco-system. Nature designed certain laws into the nature and did so with our natural bodies.

The carnivore must eat and does so and to deny that carnivore that right bestowed upon it by nature is violating nature's own laws of how it is to function.

In this world we are natural beings and must live by natural laws and have all the rights associated with that or our natural existence or we won't be free on this earth.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

Sounds like a whole lot of personal justification for wanting to live with the boot heal of government on your neck.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

Sounds like a whole lot of personal justification for wanting to live with the boot heal of government on your neck.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Complete freedom is anarchy. So you have to have rules. We can't live like babies and be allowed to do anything we choose. On the other hand we shouldn't allow our government to step all over our civil liberties and take away our rights like is going on in California.

 

[uscitizen]

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)

I like Calvin and Hobbes.

 

[Mr Natural]

I wonder who has more freedom, a single man in China or a married man in America?

 

[uscitizen]

Single man in China.

 

[editec]

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?

Interesting invitation to discussion, GT.

Of course no social animal is really free.

Even wolves have social obligations.

And being a member (or even a guest) of any of mankinds societies brings with it enormous limitations on our freedoms.

There is no pure freedom except in a state of total anarchy.

There are obviously degrees of freedom, and each society has laws, written or unwritten -- but understood nevertheless -- which we more or less adhere to, or we suffer the consequences that society metes out to those who stray from those conventions.

I don't know where I'd put America in terms of granting us our freedoms.

We're certainly less free than today's Somalians, but we're a LOT more free as individuals than in North Korea or Iran.

From my POV of having lived in this nation for 59 years, I'd say we're less free (thanks to both laws and social conventions) than we were even twenty years ago.

Some of those loss of freedom might be justified (laws about polluting for example seem mostly okay) and some of those loses of freedom are the result of the fact that keeping order in this society is just getting harder to do thanks to the population growing and our interdependence becoming more and more obvious.

Assuming the human population continues to grow, one can expect that the FREEDOMS of each individual will continue to be fenced in.

Society really won't have much choice.

The more complex and interdependent society becomes, the more it must limit the freedom of individuals,

Sad, but true.