The death of true freedom

[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.

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...​

Could be.

Except the game was originally called "The Landlord's Game" and was meant to teach about how rents enriched landowners and impoverished tenants.

Monopoly History - Invention of Monopoly

Real estate is actually simple enough to turn into a board game with simple rules.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

What makes them mutually exclusive?

My version of freedom is summed up in my signature.

I am a free moral agent because I make my choices. You can make up all the rules you want to in order for you to be free, and I will either obey them, or break them. My freedom is not dependent on you and your rules, nor is it dependent on you following my rules.

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?

In order to accept your version of freedom I would have to believe that I was less free before the internet. I wasn't.

The internet does not give you freedom, it gives you more information, and information is power. What you, as an individual, choose to do with that power is what makes you who you are. It does not make you more, or less, free.

Government is not the source of information, individuals are. Government can make it easier to access that information, but it is much more likely to make it harder. That is becoming more and more difficult as information is more widely disseminated. It is getting harder for those who want to hide information to do so. LulzSec, Anonymous, and Wikileaks are changing the dynamics of state secrets, and making it harder and harder for those who want to maintain power over us by hiding information from doing so. Trust me, if the government had foreseen the real power of the Internet when they first started building it they would never have let it get off the ground.

Society does not give individuals freedom, free individuals make society free.

It is rather difficult to explain these concepts in words that convey the impact properly. To put it as simply as I possibly can, freedom is responsibility. Responsible people realize that other people are free, respect that freedom, and make choices that reflect that fact. If you steal, or harm others, you are proving you are not responsible and do not deserve freedom because you reject the underlying premise of it.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

But what you fail to see is that you don't want "society" dictating to you, and I don't want your kind of "society" dictating to me. I have "freedoms" dear to me, just like you do. I've never, nor do I ever intend to, punish some freedom of yours I may not approve of, but I would respect you more if I knew you wouldn't impose your own set of values on me and punish me for those you disapprove of. Works both ways, and one size fits all doesn't work here.

 

[MaggieMae]

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...​

Actually, TM makes a valid point because it depends on who is playing the game of Monopoly, a child or an adult intent on scooping up all the real estate s/he can and thereby maneuvering into position for a wipeout because if, for example, someone owns an entire block of property and other players only own various pieces of the other blocks, the wealthier "landlord" can demand a pretty high price to allow the other player(s) to even stay in the game.

I usually found the game only "fun" when there were at least four players because the odds of any one person owning enough to do that were minimized.

 

[MaggieMae]

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."

Another good one, but for your signature, which rather negates your view. (And a reason I never cared for Ayn Rand's wisdom. Her ideological threats was a form of fearmongering, which I don't like in any form because it's an attempt to generate a mob mentality.)

 

[MaggieMae]

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!

^One for each!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

But what you fail to see is that you don't want "society" dictating to you, and I don't want your kind of "society" dictating to me. I have "freedoms" dear to me, just like you do. I've never, nor do I ever intend to, punish some freedom of yours I may not approve of, but I would respect you more if I knew you wouldn't impose your own set of values on me and punish me for those you disapprove of. Works both ways, and one size fits all doesn't work here.

The problem here is that you are making assumptions that are totally unwarranted. The only thing I demand of you and your society is that it leaves me the **** alone when I want to be left alone. If you cannot accept that level of dictation then the problem is not with me, it is with you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...​

Actually, TM makes a valid point because it depends on who is playing the game of Monopoly, a child or an adult intent on scooping up all the real estate s/he can and thereby maneuvering into position for a wipeout because if, for example, someone owns an entire block of property and other players only own various pieces of the other blocks, the wealthier "landlord" can demand a pretty high price to allow the other player(s) to even stay in the game.

I usually found the game only "fun" when there were at least four players because the odds of any one person owning enough to do that were minimized.

If you found that you did not play the game right. Eventually one person will always drive everyone else out of the game, the rules are set up that way. Funny thing, it is not always the one with an entire side of the board because there are safe spots on every side of the board, and luck can be a factor.