Political Crossfire Forums

[Fido]

Robingoblin wrote: I am free because I choose to take freedom for myself, wherever in this universe I may be. That simple. True freedom is not something that can be doled out to you by governments, militaries, forefathers who we're constantly reminded fought and died, or even by deities. True freedom dies the moment you accept it from another's hand. Freedom is the simple power of choice, not a way of life, a bill of rights, or a book of commandments. If I choose to pay taxes because I think it is the right thing to do, if I choose to follow the laws because I think the laws are good, if I choose to participate in a war because I think the cause is worthy, then I remain free because I made up mine own mind. It makes no difference to me if other people choose to do the same or allow their wills to be influenced by the threat of reprisals, because I am no kind of zealot, I don't believe that everyone should live, think, and believe as I do. End of story.

Freedom is something we never get from government. If we are free, our government will be free, and we give government all the power it has over us, and can give no more than we have. No majority has the right, power, or freedom to do what is morally wrong because no individual has that power to give. I am no zealot myself, but I recognize that we live under a tyranny, where the government and the majority conspire, and all are thought servants of a prehistoric state. I do disagree. Our government is our child, but our child is spoiled rotten.
Socially, freedom is not something we take, but something we have by giving. I think it is also a facet of equality, because while we may each use our freedom differently, each is equally free, or equally unfree.

[LostSoul3412]

Fido wrote: First, you cannot destroy a concept.

Perhaps, but you can render it obselete.


Fido wrote: Second, Money is a form of relationship, and like slavery in this respect. The fact that money has honor, or that money works against, or upon the concept of honor, which is itself a form of relationship only means that to change society we have to reformulate our relationships. Never forget that money is a trust, and is in fact a demonstration of trust in the government, which is again, a form of relationship. The best forms of relationship, of which a shared liberty is but one, are relationships with little formality and much relationship.
The fact is that we are all bronzed or frozen in unsatisfying relationships, or relationships of forms that hold everyone from his neighbor's throat, that are not spontaneous, nor hardly alive, and not liberty, but only peace, and very often the peace of the slave or the prisoner. Money as a medium of exchange changes free people into slave and master, and in the end changes freedom as a concept from an absolute into a relative and subjective concept.

But why must there be any relationship between the government and the people? Any relationship the individual has with society or a government degrades the individual's freedom, until there is nothing left. Without a government, and without money, the individual has relationships that he/she chooses to have, and are not pressured or expected of him/her. So how would the economy work? Well, without money, there is no economy, another obsolete concept. Money, like you stated, is an economic contract of trust. But can we really trust the very same institution that dictates our rights and liberties?

[Fido]

[quote=" Quote: LostSoul3412"] Fido wrote: First, you cannot destroy a concept.

Perhaps, but you can render it obselete.

Agreed. Once in evidence, or once perceivers, symbols, ideas, and concepts can change over time. Since they are like a mental, or perhaps a psychological association of an outer and inner reality they are not created, and not destroyed. More like discovered.


Quote: Fido wrote: Second, Money is a form of relationship, and like slavery in this respect. The fact that money has honor, or that money works against, or upon the concept of honor, which is itself a form of relationship only means that to change society we have to reformulate our relationships. Never forget that money is a trust, and is in fact a demonstration of trust in the government, which is again, a form of relationship. The best forms of relationship, of which a shared liberty is but one, are relationships with little formality and much relationship.
The fact is that we are all bronzed or frozen in unsatisfying relationships, or relationships of forms that hold everyone from his neighbor's throat, that are not spontaneous, nor hardly alive, and not liberty, but only peace, and very often the peace of the slave or the prisoner. Money as a medium of exchange changes free people into slave and master, and in the end changes freedom as a concept from an absolute into a relative and subjective concept.

But why must there be any relationship between the government and the people? Any relationship the individual has with society or a government degrades the individual's freedom, until there is nothing left. Without a government, and without money, the individual has relationships that he/she chooses to have, and are not pressured or expected of him/her. So how would the economy work? Well, without money, there is no economy, another obsolete concept. Money, like you stated, is an economic contract of trust. But can we really trust the very same institution that dictates our rights and liberties? [/quote]

You are thinking as an individual opposed to government. When government works it is a reflection of the desires and needs of the citizen. The government is only an extension of the individual, and a combination of the power of the individual with the power of many. Our particular government, the united states, has limited representatives twice that I know of, and the Court has permitted this. But why would they want to? Should the government not normally want to reflect the interests of greater numbers? In making life easier for themselves they have made the most democratic part of the government less democratic. Let us see where that leads.
Money is a trust, Yes. Like every other quality of our lives, if we do not control them, they will control us. Looking at Muslim countries, the single greatest difference apart from religion en gross, is their prohibition against interest. Part of the reason they are so poor across the area is that they have no means to accumulate capital. But as a reality, the payment of interest has bankrupted the nation and made slaves of the population. We are slaves to debt. And is this necessary? Jefferson warned against deficit spending, and said that it would lead to wars of adventure whose price would be loaded onto the backs of the working people. From a practical point of view, if our state is a common wealth then the money and wealth is ours. Rather than the state guaranteeing collections, the government could loan all money at no interest for any reasonable request. It is hardly in the interest of the government and society to have the vast majority of people reduced by interest to slavery. Will this change happen? Capital, interest, and profit are all forms under which people relate. The relationship is the reality, and the forms can be changed. Unfortunately we have many examples in the past of societies that have fatally weakened themselves with forms that have s*cked the vitality of one group to the benefit of another. So forms are changeable, and the key is to understand what we are seeing, but it is not easy.