If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The nature of freedom
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I was reminded of this a couple of days ago when my dad told me about a man who tried to describe the nature of freedom in a concise manner. He wrote a book of over a thousand pages.
This may or may not be true because I can't remember the name of the man! However, it provokes an interesting subject for discussion, especially in the light of the recent gun-control controversies on these boards.
(note: this post is IN NO WAY meant to continue the gun debate. this is a new topic. sure, guns may be a part of your opinion but please don't start the argument that's been going on in at least four posts recently!)
So, do you consider yourself free? In what ways do you think you are? How much freedom is a good thing? Where does freedom descend into anarchy?
have fun <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Confidence is the feeling you sometimes have before you fully understand the situation.
- Anon
This may or may not be true because I can't remember the name of the man! However, it provokes an interesting subject for discussion, especially in the light of the recent gun-control controversies on these boards.
(note: this post is IN NO WAY meant to continue the gun debate. this is a new topic. sure, guns may be a part of your opinion but please don't start the argument that's been going on in at least four posts recently!)
So, do you consider yourself free? In what ways do you think you are? How much freedom is a good thing? Where does freedom descend into anarchy?
have fun <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Confidence is the feeling you sometimes have before you fully understand the situation.
- Anon
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Joking aside, I think that that quote strikes very close to home. Tolerance of differences (of any and all kinds) is essential to the freedom of those who exhibit such differences.
Some have said that "you're as free as you think you are." Taken literally, I think that statement is false: consider the madman incarcerated in an asylum who deludes himself into thinking he is King of Nepal!
On the other hand, one's state of mind is certainly an indicator of how freely one is likely to act - or be prepared to act.
As for the relationship between freedom and anarchy... Well, total INDIVIDUAL freedom leads to anarchy and the dictatorship of the strongest. Zero individual freedom (or total COLLECTIVE freedom) is precisely the opposite. (If in doubt, appeal to tautology, that's what I say! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"> )
I wouldn't go so far as to say that the few should be subjugated to the WILL of the many; I would say that the few should be subjugated to the GOOD of the many, if ever that can be well-determined.
To me, each of the above is a sign of freedom and each is something I would be willing to kill for.
I include the last one as something which shows just how free we are. During both world wars, objectors we not imprisoned, just shunned. To me that is a very good example of real freedom - the choice NOT to fight when your country calls.
"Where does freedom descend into anarchy?".
To me this implies that the writer thinks that anarchy is not freedom, but instead is some kind of chaos. I have been an anarchist for many years, and I believe in it sincerely. But one thing which really pisses me off is the way that the majority of people think that anarchists are all thugs who think they should be allowed to go around killing each other. The media always portray's anarchy by showing pictures of violent protests, with shops smashed and cars in flames. But that is not what anarchy is about. If anyting, those are the things that anarchists are against.
The common symbol of anarchy, the circled A, is actually an A inside the letter O, standing for Anarchy is Order.
To all true anarchists, anarchy is a society where people can live free, without been told what they can or can't do, but also where people don't feel the need to go around killing people.
As an anarchist the two most important things about it, to me, and liberty and equality.
Anyway, enough of my ranting... anyone else got any views on the subject?
Unfortunately those two things are pretty much mutually exclusive...You dont tell people what they can and cant do and they WILL go and kill people.
Im almost certain that if you got your wish of anarchy then youd be wishing for good old authority again after a few weeks.
The notion of people living together freely and getting along famously just doesnt work...People are bastards...The strong will always try and dominate the weak and without some kind of authority to protect the weak then youre just gonna end up with slaves and authoritarianism.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
What I'm saying is that a system of anarchy, to me, would be better than what we have at the moment. I am aware, however, of the unfortuante fact that most people thrive on power and money. They are greedy self-centered bastards. Therefore, it is unlikely that a system of anarchy would be possible to mantain in the current world. However, the anti-capitalist movement is steadily growing, and it may just be possible to change peoples views (through things like a revised education system) so that there is a hope that it can one day work.
Also, there are theries (acceptable ones if you ask me) that a lot of crime is actually brought on due to the 'democracy' we live in. Due to the heirarchy system we form, and the stress caused by the lives we are forced to live. I can't go into it now (gotta go to work. yes, work = capitalism, blah blah blah) but I will if ya want at another time.
Can you tell me exactly how the world will work under anarchy? Will we all be subsistance farmers doing nothing but working all the time? People today rely on the nanny state for EVERYTHING..there is no sense of personal responsibility today. I cant see how anarchy would work..
Im genuinely interested to hear how you see this working.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
Here, here. Children don't get taught that choices (actions) have consequences, and one needs to take responsibility for the consequences one has brought about. If there is to be a golden rule, "take responsibility" is as good a one as any I can think of.
I'm seriously disturbed by how little awareness kids these days seem to have of the consequences of their own acts. Whether this is a direct product of the "Nanny State" or not, I'm not sure. I lean (just) towards "No".
The whole point of anarchy, though, is that it means people living as they please. Therefore to say 'anarchy is THIS' would be against the very values that anarchy stands for. (I hope this is making sense... its been a long day)
If I was to explain all the principles of anarchy, and all the possible ways it could/would work, I could write a pages upon pages. Instead, I will briefly explain a few possible ways which it would work, and some of the main values that would be in place.
One of the main things behind anarchy is equality. When debating about how anarchy would work with other people, they would often say 'but people are not born equal, everyone has different skills and abilities'. This is true, of course. But anarchy isn't about equality of ability, its about equality of oppourtunity. Everyone should be given the same opportunities in life. For example, in the current system, many people can't go to univercity, because of the costs. This means that the people who do get into uni have an advantage over the others. This doesn't mean that peopl who didn't go to uni are less able, it just means that the richer people have an unfair advantage, and have access to privalages that, in a fair equal society, everyone should have access to.
In an anarchist society, eveyone would be given the oppourtunity to go to uni IF THEY WANTED TO.
(please ask if you want a more detailed explanation)
As for how people would live.... "Will we all be subsistance farmers doing nothing but working all the time?"
As I said before, it is very hard to predict how things would work. Even to the point where some anarchists think there would be no type of currency, and others think there would. One commonly held belief, is that there would be a lot more trading of goods for good, as a pose to goods for money. The USA have crops, Iraq has oil.... its simple enough to work that out. Again, there are flaws with that (some countries have more raw materials than others, ect) and people often say that why would the USA trade with, say, Kenya, when the USA doesn't need to, and they will not profit from it. The thing which would need to happen to allow anarchy to work (which, i admit, is a long way from happening) is that people would have to stop worrying about making profit. In fact, idealy, money would not matter in an anarchist society. Instead of working for money, people would produce what was needed to be produced to live, and then they themselves would benefit from the production. For example: in a community, food is needed, electricity is needed, water is needed and so on. People would produce food, and then would trade the food for the electricity and water, on a no-profit basis.
(again, ask for more details)
A community could not function if there were no paramiters set. In the current system, paramiers are set by the government. An idsea for an anarchist system would be to have a council, with a chairperson, all elected by everyonw in the community. There would be votes taken on various decisions, but if someone voted against a certian project, they wouild not have to take part if the majority voted for.
At this point i would like to say that it is very difficult to put the ideas in my head into writing. I have made an attempt, but no doubt parts of it will seem strange and unclear. Please point out which parts, and I will try to clarify.
An additional thing I would like to say is that the reason so many people think anarchy is chaos, is because the only time any anarchists get media attention is when violence breaks out. For example, take MayDay 2001, and the so called 'riots' in london. In the weeks leading up to the protest (which i attended peacefully) the government and the media launched a scare-tactics campaign, making everyone believe that the anarchist were hell-bent on trashing the city. That is why the police had to blockade them in for 8 hours.... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif">
As an eyewitness, I can honestly say that the only violence I saw in the Oxford Street blockade was caused because the police treated the protestors so badly. FOr 8 hours they were cooped in, in the rain, with no food, water or toilets. They were given no information, and that is why frustrations rose, and violence broke out.
The media is controlled by the governemnt, therefore it is going to do its best to make sure that anarchists (who want to see the end of any government) look bad.
Well maybe its just difficult to put into words but what you just wrote sounds like communism interlaced with some kind of primitive living system of trade..Can you give me some links to pages that can clarify this to me...It seems very bizarre.
I think the reason the London protesters were treated so badly is purely down to the actions of so called anarchists in other countries...For the life of me I cant work out how burning the cars of private citizens can in any way halt global capitalism..maybe the violent anarchists know something we dont.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
'to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability'
anarchy was tried briefly in barcelona during the spanish civil war (see Orwell's Homage to Catalonia), and actually worked quite well. the flaw developed because the anarchist micro-collective could not function in conjunction with non-anarchist external pressures. basically, in order for it to work, everyone everywhere has to be living under an anarchist system. thereby, there would be no external pressures which would cause the system to collapse (as it did in barcelona under the pressures of war and infiltration by communists).
its a nice idea, and one that has been around for millennia (Plato's 'Repulic' i think). but, seeing as people have a habit of not agreeing with one another, it mght be difficult to implement.
the other thing about anarchy is the inherent risk of abuse of the system. as there is no state (per se), there can be no state regualtion of the actions of an individual. it is up to the inddividual to regulate themselves, or their fellow citizens to intervene. humanity has a tendency to not really be that good-natured, so all it takes is one ambitious citizen, and the system could topple with astonishing speed.
i actually respect a great many of the ideals of anarchy, and believe that in theory it is a far closer to ideal system than that under which we currently operate.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Which sounds to me suspiciously like the rule of the mob.
It seems to me that the anarchist principle being propounded here is essentially the Pleasure Principle. I strongly suspect that any modern state founded on that principle would find itself mirroring the World State in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
As for the abandonment of money, I suggest a reading of the first half-a-dozen chapters of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
Isn't that democracy?
The reasons I use the somewhat pejorative "rule of the mob" rather than "democracy" are twofold:
1) "Rule of the mob" carries with it the connotation of "rule of those who can most effectively beat the rest into submission."
2) "Democracy" has come to stand as a foreshortening of "representative democracy." Every country on this planet (to my knowledge) that calls itself a democracy is, in fact, a representative democracy i.e. one in which more or less proportional and democratic elections are held for a government that is otherwise largely unaccountable during its term.
P.S. Sean, I'd appreciate your thoughts on Adam Smith as related to government, over on the Guns thread: I posted a little clarification earlier.
"We" as in "we in the UK"? No, I know we don't, and I'm glad of it. I don't have time to be a full-time member of government and hold down another job, and I bet you don't either.
"Avauncez! To Defend and Serve!"
I thought you brits lived in a flock... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif">
<As for the relationship between freedom and anarchy... Well, total INDIVIDUAL freedom leads to anarchy and the dictatorship of the strongest. Zero individual freedom (or total COLLECTIVE freedom) is precisely the opposite. (If in doubt, appeal to tautology, that's what I say!
Government restrictions also mean government enforcement. I think history has shown in several african nations, what happens when anarchy reigns and usually an awful lot of people die.
Never picked you for an anarchist Doubro.
Doubro, you have really got to get into the habit of reading what I write.
>
Pragmatically speaking there is no differece, as the "Will" of the many directly determines the "Good" in your chosen Society.[/B][/QUOTE]
What's this? An admission that morals are human constructs and essentially arbitrary? At long last! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">x10^(something huge)
There is a difference between what one wants and what is best for one. Consider the propensity of small children to drink bleach if it's left out in the kitchen. (Of course, only a nutty parent would leave such a toxic substance within the child's reach anyway...)
<Doubro, you have really got to get into the habit of reading what I write.>
Same to you.
Mac quote:
<I would say that the few should be subjugated to the GOOD of the many, if ever that can be well-determined.
>Doubro:
Pragmatically speaking there is no differece, as the "Will" of the many directly determines the "Good" in YOUR chosen Society.[/B][/QUOTE]>
<What's this? An admission that morals are human constructs and essentially arbitrary? At long last! x10^(something huge)>
It's nothing of the sort. Read MY post again. I said in YOUR CHOSEN SOCIETY...meaning... YOU THINK the Will of the Many automatically determines the "Good". It is OBVIOUS this is NOT what I think.
<There is a difference between what one wants and what is best for one. Consider the propensity of small children to drink bleach if it's left out in the kitchen.>
So, any minority group in a society that disagrees with the mainstream should be treated as CHILDREN to be parented by the ALL knowing Majority huh?
<(Of course, only a nutty parent would leave such a toxic substance within the child's reach anyway...)>
Or a Nutty Majority...
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 10-09-2001).]
Let's try and straighten this out, shall we?
I think that morals are things we construct ourselves in order to guide us in ways that will help ensure our survival. Essentially, "good" is that which promotes the continuation of the life process. Let me just point out that this is not what I think the word "good" ought to mean, this is what I think it really does mean, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it.
A few examples, perhaps? Killing seems like a good one. We have this moral injunction against killing people randomly. This makes sense, since random large-scale killing sprees would very likely put an end to the species. On the other hand, we recognise that killing is sometimes justified, e.g. in wars, or when the person to be killed is incredibly dangerous, and the lives of the many (the continuance of the species) cannot be safeguarded in any other way.
But, of course, to be continually working out what is best for the whole life process, species, even nation, is bloody difficult. Simpler "rules of thumb" are required for everyday use. Rules like the Ten Commandments: useful as guides, but not true in utter generality.
This is only our idea of "good", though. I'm not disputing that humans generate moral values, and that they are ultimately designed to increase survival chances. What I question is whether our idea of "good" corresponds to any "true" or "objective" kind of "good"; I have to wonder whether such a "good" even exists.
I hope this clears up my position a bit. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
P.S. In relation to "freedom", I guess it's just a concept we've found to be useful in enhancing survivability. Freedom leads to diversity and diversity enhances survivability.
Freedom often leads to Death...as does diversity on occasion.
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 11-09-2001).]