Political Crossfire Forums

[The Comrade]

i was in U.S. history today and we were talking about enlightenment leaders and i started thinking about freedom. this is what i came up with.


people are essentially afraid of freedom. it's something everyone wants but at the same time people are terrified at what true freedom could bring. many of you will say that anarchy is complete freedom, which i would agree with you on(although i am not an anarchist). if people honestly wanted this freedom, then governments would never have come around. people feel safe and secure when police officers roam the streets, laws are enacted to protect people, and the goverments leaders give a few reassuring words to tell everyone things are going to be okay.


well this is just a thought from the comrade, enjoy!

(and feel free to lambast the hell out of me. i really want to know what everyone thinks about this).

[J. Reiner]

Your a bit off.

People in general are not afraid of there own freedom. They are afraid of everyone else's.

[Fido]

J. Reiner wrote: Your a bit off.

People in general are not afraid of there own freedom. They are afraid of everyone else's.

They are not afraid of everyone else's freedom since very few ever experience freedom except through some escape. They very much fear the explosions that result when freedom long denied is seized in excess. They are afraid of the results of slavery, which are irresponsibility, violence, ignorance, and irrationality. And they are afraid of their own freedom, and of the complete change in life freedom would demand of us, and of all the pent up anger and frustration many carry, yet few express, against their masters, but unleash upon their fellow victims all too regularly. If many people could express their self hatred at their failures that life heaps upon them in their hopeless conditions it would be with a straight razor upon their throats.
I take consolation in the fact that those who ride around on the masses' backs and are the cause of all the insecurity we know that is not natural suffer more dreadfully from insecurity than the many they oppress. And I am not afraid of freedom, nor particularly spiteful at the suffering around me, because I am free in the only sense it matters, in my thoughts, and all else is but an incidental challenge.

[J. Reiner]

Fido wrote:
They are not afraid of everyone else's freedom since very few ever experience freedom except through some escape.

Who is to say that if this oppression were never there in the first place, they would not constantly act as they do now in times of escape?

Quote: They very much fear the explosions that result when freedom long denied is seized in excess.

Though I won't correct the fear of those who burst from the chains of bondage, I will question you assumption that there can ever be an excess of Freedom.

Quote: They are afraid of the results of slavery, which are irresponsibility, violence, ignorance, and irrationality.

The list of sins is precisely what causes fear among man. These do not come from slavery, they come from nature. I would propose that society, and the removal of freedoms is what encourages people in mass to free themselves from these terrible values. Was religion not established to enforce morals upon the masses?

Quote: And they are afraid of their own freedom, and of the complete change in life freedom would demand of us, and of all the pent up anger and frustration many carry, yet few express, against their masters, but unleash upon their fellow victims all too regularly.

This is precisely why we fear others freedom. I know that I would never kill a man, but would my neighbor? Most likely not, but some would, and the deterrent of law prevents some from doing such.

Quote: I take consolation in the fact that those who ride around on the masses' backs and are the cause of all the insecurity we know that is not natural suffer more dreadfully from insecurity than the many they oppress. And I am not afraid of freedom, nor particularly spiteful at the suffering around me, because I am free in the only sense it matters, in my thoughts, and all else is but an incidental challenge.

Insecurity is natural. Animals run from predators, and opposing members of the same species. They are insecure, they do not wish to die. Law allows for some security, where freedom does not. In order to not fear the freedom of others you must trust in the good will of man, and that is indeed quite foolish.

[Babylon_Horuv]

J. Reiner wrote: Fido wrote:
They are not afraid of everyone else's freedom since very few ever experience freedom except through some escape.

Who is to say that if this oppression were never there in the first place, they would not constantly act as they do now in times of escape?

Quote: They very much fear the explosions that result when freedom long denied is seized in excess.

Though I won't correct the fear of those who burst from the chains of bondage, I will question you assumption that there can ever be an excess of Freedom.

Quote: They are afraid of the results of slavery, which are irresponsibility, violence, ignorance, and irrationality.

The list of sins is precisely what causes fear among man. These do not come from slavery, they come from nature. I would propose that society, and the removal of freedoms is what encourages people in mass to free themselves from these terrible values. Was religion not established to enforce morals upon the masses?

Quote: And they are afraid of their own freedom, and of the complete change in life freedom would demand of us, and of all the pent up anger and frustration many carry, yet few express, against their masters, but unleash upon their fellow victims all too regularly.

This is precisely why we fear others freedom. I know that I would never kill a man, but would my neighbor? Most likely not, but some would, and the deterrent of law prevents some from doing such.

Quote: I take consolation in the fact that those who ride around on the masses' backs and are the cause of all the insecurity we know that is not natural suffer more dreadfully from insecurity than the many they oppress. And I am not afraid of freedom, nor particularly spiteful at the suffering around me, because I am free in the only sense it matters, in my thoughts, and all else is but an incidental challenge.

Insecurity is natural. Animals run from predators, and opposing members of the same species. They are insecure, they do not wish to die. Law allows for some security, where freedom does not. In order to not fear the freedom of others you must trust in the good will of man, and that is indeed quite foolish.

Giving some men power over others magnifies the flaws of those in power. Only if all are equal in power are we safe from each other.

[J. Reiner]

Babylon_Horuv wrote:
Giving some men power over others magnifies the flaws of those in power. Only if all are equal in power are we safe from each other.

Do you disregard those who are not physically or mentally the equal of others? Law is in place to ensure those with natural power do not destroy those with less. Only if every man truly was equal, identical, would complete freedom be acceptable.

You rely far too much on the good nature of man.

[Fido]

Quote: J. Reiner wrote: Fido wrote:
They are not afraid of everyone else's freedom since very few ever experience freedom except through some escape.

Who is to say that if this oppression were never there in the first place, they would not constantly act as they do now in times of escape?

I can speak to the past and speak of nature, and in each case forces find their equilibrium even in the expanse of the universe and in the confines of the atom. The greatest freedom humanity has known and the greatest tyranny have each been experienced within primitive societies. I can point you to some books, and one off the top is Indians of the Western Great Lakes. Without it being part of any particular purpose, it gives many illustrations of the freedoms those people knew, but also some of the restraints. There was the constant restraint posed by enemies outside of the community, but within one was free, and very free in fact, to be crazy, unusual, or simply individual. Yet the constant danger while reinforcing the special relationships that freedom marked, also demanded that each behaved in ways that brought honor to his people, and for this he was honored his own self and revenged if necessary. One point that is made is that to show their people brave so as to not invite war, these people would permit themselves to be burned up, cut up, torn apart, and sometime eaten before their own eyes without complaint sometimes for days on end, and even offering up any unsuffered parts of their bodies to the abuse. It is amazing, but people who are truly free soon find the proper limits of their freedoms while those who are not free, but who must clutch, and grab at a freedoms they know they cannot own -know no limits in their stolen freedom.

Quote: Quote: They very much fear the explosions that result when freedom long denied is seized in excess.

Though I won't correct the fear of those who burst from the chains of bondage, I will question you assumption that there can ever be an excess of Freedom.

Freedom in excess is license. It is no wonder that equality is pared with liberty, but a fact. One can be as free, but not more free than ones mates.

Quote: Quote: They are afraid of the results of slavery, which are irresponsibility, violence, ignorance, and irrationality.

The list of sins is precisely what causes fear among man. These do not come from slavery, they come from nature. I would propose that society, and the removal of freedoms is what encourages people in mass to free themselves from these terrible values. Was religion not established to enforce morals upon the masses?

And Lucretius said that religion multiplies the evils we suffer, my paraphrase. Let me edit this... Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum, "To so many evils has religion persuaded men". Fear makes all men slaves, but the first fear we should dispense with is of our neighbors. All people have the same concerns, and working that out is easier for the free than for slaves. Just as having no freedom results in people taking freedom in excess, lack of freedom results in more immorality than morality. Un-free people are in doubt always of their reality, and reality is not proved by being as wanted or expected -morally, but by being immoral.

Quote: Quote: And they are afraid of their own freedom, and of the complete change in life freedom would demand of us, and of all the pent up anger and frustration many carry, yet few express, against their masters, but unleash upon their fellow victims all too regularly.



This is precisely why we fear others freedom. I know that I would never kill a man, but would my neighbor? Most likely not, but some would, and the deterrent of law prevents some from doing such.

Fear makes slaves. You set out to limit his freedom and find your own in chains. That's why I hate the demagogues we have today. They all preach fear, and teach hate. I turn it back at them in spades.

Quote: Quote: I take consolation in the fact that those who ride around on the masses' backs and are the cause of all the insecurity we know that is not natural suffer more dreadfully from insecurity than the many they oppress. And I am not afraid of freedom, nor particularly spiteful at the suffering around me, because I am free in the only sense it matters, in my thoughts, and all else is but an incidental challenge.

Insecurity is natural. Animals run from predators, and opposing members of the same species. They are insecure, they do not wish to die. Law allows for some security, where freedom does not. In order to not fear the freedom of others you must trust in the good will of man, and that is indeed quite foolish.

Insecurity is natural, and it does not get better by taking greater security so another can know less. It is a closed system. Either we will all be equally secure, or equally insecure. People with a lot of loot got to worry night and day. They don't live in a heaven. They have another address in the same hell we all share.

[agentkgb]

J. Reiner wrote: Your a bit off.

People in general are not afraid of there own freedom. They are afraid of everyone else's.
They're afraid of what someone else would do with their freedom.

[Fido]

agentkgb wrote: J. Reiner wrote: Your a bit off.

People in general are not afraid of there own freedom. They are afraid of everyone else's.
They're afraid of what someone else would do with their freedom.

They are afraid because they are powerless, and because they know they are powerless they fear every sort of change until change sweeps them under the sod.
Freedom does not involve more worry, but less. Freedom does not require more work, but less. What freedom does require more of is courage, because trust of ones neighbors is essential, and because most of us do not know our neighbors, this is doubly difficult. We endure all the formality that is our substitute for a freedom we don't possess because the stress of actually interacting with people, and having a relationship that can actually work it out is more easily delegated than accepted. A prison is protection for many on both sides of the bars. People have to choose freedom for themselves, and allow it to others. Some just can't do it.

[Gus]

Depends on your idea of freedom. Some might say that being free is being safe.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

Gus wrote: Depends on your idea of freedom. Some might say that being free is being safe.

Is safety the same thing as security?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Gus wrote: Depends on your idea of freedom. Some might say that being free is being safe.

David Hume wrote:
By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may.


Best defintion in existance.

[agentkgb]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: Gus wrote: Depends on your idea of freedom. Some might say that being free is being safe.

Is safety the same thing as security?
It depends. Usually you're safe "from something," but security is usually security "of something." If your nation is secure, you might be safe from an outside invasion.

[MKSWEO]

I think some people associate freedom with choas and a lack of regulations. I believe people fear that as a free mass there is no control.

if someone already said it...oopps!

[Fido]

MKSWEO wrote: I think some people associate freedom with choas and a lack of regulations. I believe people fear that as a free mass there is no control.

if someone already said it...oopps!

For some people freedom is order. Many who fear the freedom of their neighbor give more freedom than they possess -to give- to officials who have more power than their neighbor could imagine. I trust those I know, and think those who put peace and order above liberty only seek protection for their injustice.

[Fido]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Gus wrote: Depends on your idea of freedom. Some might say that being free is being safe.

David Hume wrote:
By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may.


Best defintion in existance.

Hume's definition forgets society. Freedom is a part of a dynamic relationship, and I would say the form of that relationship -where a person is free, as in the definition above, to act for, or against ones own best interest, but without the freedom to act against the interests of others, so that freedom can only be considered as a positive force in society beyond which it becomes privilege, or license. Freedom is like Paul: all things to all people. It is never a fixed quantity, but a quality determined by circumstances. But you can say that while freedom is a right, and a power; no one has the power to take freedom. Beyond a certain point fixed by circumstances freedom changes its nature and becomes tyranny, excess, crime, or injustice. Within limits, freedom is life, and beyond, it is death.

[Babylon_Horuv]

J. Reiner wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote:
Giving some men power over others magnifies the flaws of those in power. Only if all are equal in power are we safe from each other.

Do you disregard those who are not physically or mentally the equal of others? Law is in place to ensure those with natural power do not destroy those with less. Only if every man truly was equal, identical, would complete freedom be acceptable.

You rely far too much on the good nature of man.

And I say that by giving some men power over others you rely too much on the goodness fo man. Those who achieve power under the law are those most willing to strive for power, that means that power attracts many of the worst in society.

[Fido]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: J. Reiner wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote:
Giving some men power over others magnifies the flaws of those in power. Only if all are equal in power are we safe from each other.

Do you disregard those who are not physically or mentally the equal of others? Law is in place to ensure those with natural power do not destroy those with less. Only if every man truly was equal, identical, would complete freedom be acceptable.

You rely far too much on the good nature of man.

And I say that by giving some men power over others you rely too much on the goodness fo man. Those who achieve power under the law are those most willing to strive for power, that means that power attracts many of the worst in society.

One cannot give power one does not possess. You can give anyone the authority to act as you have the right to act -in your place.
To answer the above, one need only look at the effect of law to see that it does not protect the powerless, but protects the powerful few from the many. Law puts a premium on peace, and so protects some from violence; but in protecting wealth it also protects poverty, and restrains people injured by injustice to such a degree that they never know justice. In the end, property is protected at the expense of people, and even with a price on peace, violence is common. Many public police are devoted to the protection of property, but there are more private police in this country than public ones. Is it not strange that people who cannot afford to pay taxes to support public law enforcement have money for their private law enforcement? And it is the poor who suffer most often and severely from crime!

[Babylon_Horuv]

Fido wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: J. Reiner wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote:
Giving some men power over others magnifies the flaws of those in power. Only if all are equal in power are we safe from each other.

Do you disregard those who are not physically or mentally the equal of others? Law is in place to ensure those with natural power do not destroy those with less. Only if every man truly was equal, identical, would complete freedom be acceptable.

You rely far too much on the good nature of man.

And I say that by giving some men power over others you rely too much on the goodness fo man. Those who achieve power under the law are those most willing to strive for power, that means that power attracts many of the worst in society.

One cannot give power one does not possess. You can give anyone the authority to act as you have the right to act -in your place.
To answer the above, one need only look at the effect of law to see that it does not protect the powerless, but protects the powerful few from the many. Law puts a premium on peace, and so protects some from violence; but in protecting wealth it also protects poverty, and restrains people injured by injustice to such a degree that they never know justice. In the end, property is protected at the expense of people, and even with a price on peace, violence is common. Many public police are devoted to the protection of property, but there are more private police in this country than public ones. Is it not strange that people who cannot afford to pay taxes to support public law enforcement have money for their private law enforcement? And it is the poor who suffer most often and severely from crime!

Guns give a heck of a lot of power.

[Fido]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: Fido wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: J. Reiner wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote:
Giving some men power over others magnifies the flaws of those in power. Only if all are equal in power are we safe from each other.

Do you disregard those who are not physically or mentally the equal of others? Law is in place to ensure those with natural power do not destroy those with less. Only if every man truly was equal, identical, would complete freedom be acceptable.

You rely far too much on the good nature of man.

And I say that by giving some men power over others you rely too much on the goodness fo man. Those who achieve power under the law are those most willing to strive for power, that means that power attracts many of the worst in society.

One cannot give power one does not possess. You can give anyone the authority to act as you have the right to act -in your place.
To answer the above, one need only look at the effect of law to see that it does not protect the powerless, but protects the powerful few from the many. Law puts a premium on peace, and so protects some from violence; but in protecting wealth it also protects poverty, and restrains people injured by injustice to such a degree that they never know justice. In the end, property is protected at the expense of people, and even with a price on peace, violence is common. Many public police are devoted to the protection of property, but there are more private police in this country than public ones. Is it not strange that people who cannot afford to pay taxes to support public law enforcement have money for their private law enforcement? And it is the poor who suffer most often and severely from crime!

Guns give a heck of a lot of power.

Mao said power grows out of the barrel of a gun. But violence breeds fear, and fear is the destruction of freedom. The only cure to governments with too much power is people with enough power. When we each have control over our own affairs, and an equal share of control in the affairs that may affect us all then we can say with honesty that we are free! It is only a dream now, or a memory; but we have no future if we cannot make this hope a reality.