A Theoretical Question about Human Individual Freedom…

Would anyone care to define what they mean by freedom? We talk a lot about freedom -- but how free are we really? How about some examples of what our supposed freedom is? Mostly, it is an illusion. Our shackles may not be as evident, they may be more subtle, but they are still there.

We have a social order that plays very subtly -- sometimes not so subtly -- on our hopes, our fears, our desires, our pain -- to keep us in line, to make sure our quest from freedom does not go to far. And when that fails, there is the law -- not just criminal law, but countless regulations intended to protect us from ourselves.

It's easier to understand if you think in terms of "fitness", quite simply the extent of yoru ability to survive, and/or thrive, and to propagate your genes.

Fitness, however, travels in vehicles - individual fitness is one vehicle, group fitness another, and there is generally a continuous, underlying tension between the two.

As typically framed by Amicus, if I'm not mistaken, "The Right" represents individual fitness, "The Left" group fitness - unless they're being accused of flouting the moral values of the right - as a group - and not withstanding, many of these values are flouted in the name of individuality in the face of the homogeneizing force of these same moral values, which are essentially restictions on personal behavior when they are not strictly to do with justice or ethics, fo which we have developed, uh, the concepts of justice and ethics.

To start at the beginning, humans are a species of primate, and generally behave very much as primates behave, both on the group and the individual level - the primary difference being that humans are capable of formulating and communicating higher level abstractions that the rest of the primates - the remainder of the animal kingdon in fact - are denied, a point that will come further into play as we progress.

To get back to the primate, humans, like all the other great apes, are accentric-centripetal, and this goes drectly to the heart of the question as framed in the OP - what this essentially means is that all the great apes, including us, operate in the indiviudal mode by default, and only tend to display organizational behaviors when presented with a threat to group fitness.

There are a number of advantages to being in a group, there is safety in numbers for one thing: anything that presents an external threat to a given individual of a given group, usually, at least theoretically, presents the same threat to the rest of the group - a leopard might run off with your neighbors baby tonight - next week, it might be yours.

Thus, certain group behaviors, largely defensive, are selected for, behaviors that give a group an advantage in thriving and propagating the group - as individuals, and by extension, a certian degree of conformity to the group is also selected for, a recognition of those group behaviors which increase indiviudal fitness even if it's occasionally inconvenient - murder or excessive violence for example is generally not tolerated, for reasons expalined a little further on, evenif you could increase you individual fitness by offing a rival - though of course, this works a bit differently in abstraction, while theft - which is tolerated in primate groups (though it might not increase your popularity index), is usually only tolerated in human ones when it's institutionalized.

In it's most basic sense, what happens - and this holds true for most mammals that live in groups, is that the males fight amongst themselves for primacy within the group, the male alpha hierarchy.

Usually, as can be imagined, this is based on sheer physical strength, but more fundamentally, it consists of the ability to command the attention of the group - to a certian extent - and this means that popularity can overcome strength - in this culture, and most of modern Westernm culture for example, entertainers and athletes are almost always more widely known, recognized, and even quoted, than the people actually elected to run the country, their lives are scrutinized to the minutest degree and detail, and people are continually shocked when jocks who have thived predominantly through displays of simple physical prowess behave like... well, jocks. It's as if they somehow expect them to display leadership skills, and they do - subconsciously.

The sad fact is that most jocks are simply not political, they tend to be simple physical creatures, driven by simple physical needs - not dumb neccessarily, just... simple.

Entertainers by contrast, tend to be fairly complex, but driven by the either the need to entertain, to make people happy, or to be adulated themselves - we don't really care which, as long as they don't suck, and once agaian, dominance in the hierarchy is essentially the ability to command attention - it really has nothing to do with being right or wrong, good, evil, or even indifference except insofar as these things are capable of grabbing attention in the midst of the myriad distractions that accentric side of human behavior is prone to.

I digress a bit, but as it turns out, politicians are alot like sports stars or entertainers, and typically seek out status for much the same variety of motives, though they more often are attracted by the sheer desire to exercise power, which the athlete normally shuns, and they entertainer is usually only half assed at. Ronald Reagan ,of course, falls into that catagory.

Anyhoo, ot return to the primate for a moment and put this all into perpective, the individual is, by default, in the indiviualistic mode most of the time, the sorting out of alpha status is continual, but mostly in the background, and the hierarchy itself, is for the most part, transparent, there no formal ceremonies or anything, other than the usual rituals of dominance and submission, respect and provocation that are part of the sorting out process itself.

The ritual are important, because when members of the same group fight, should th efight become excessively violent, group fitness may be negatively affected. If the reigning alpha male get intoa fight with a male lower inthe hierarchy and defeats him, killing him lets say - but get's his balls ripped of in the process - the victory is pyhhic, not only terms oif idividual fitness, but also in terms of group fitness with the loss of one male needed to protect the group, and the inability of the victor to pass along whatever genetic traits he possesed, size, etc., that allowed him to ascend to alpha status in the first place.

So again, we see that individual fitness is deeply and inextricably intertwined with group fitness - the sole purpose of the alpha hierarchy is to centripetalize in order to deal with a threat to the group - when the leopard appears, the males form a defensive line, the alpha in the lead, and they either distract the leopard with displays, or attack with stones, clubs etc., essentially keeping it occupied while the less physically robust members of the group, they young and old, females, etc. retreat to safety.

This is the centripetal pattern, and it can be readily discerned, in abstract form, in pretty much all human social, economic, and political behavior.

Most typically we see attmpts to centripetalize support through the presentation of an external threat, when one is not present, one is invented - being that the centripetal mode is therby often being exploited in order to secure individual fitnness in terms of positionin the alpha hierarchy, the "external" threat is often in fact an internal one, which must be externalized in order to overcome the taboos against intergroup violence - i.e., physical force can only be used when the threat is external to the group, and in the struggle for dominance, physical force is the most predictable argument settler, at least in the short run.

This raised a key point that I skipped over earlier: given that the benefit conveyed by membership inthe group are so critical to individual fitness - not just thriving, but even merely surviving in an often hostile and indifferent ecosystem, group inclusion becomes a powerful selection stressor, and abstracted, being cast out of the group is often tantamount to a death sentence Though mitigated to a degree in more advanced supertribes where a certian degree of mobility between groups is possible, it remains a powerful force for commanding recognition and observance of group values.

Ironically of course, for Amicus, this is typically most evident in republican politics, where dissent means being banned fromthe benefits of the group - moderates and centrists have largely been purged from republican ranks - Larry Craigs future as a Senator for example largely hinges on how many people he can convince that he isn't really gay - and again, ironically, his defense hinged on class bias, i.e., a basic fear of large Black men, which presumabley is supposed to resonate with his constiuancy - what the world coming to when Senators are forced to orally service negros in the bathroom in order to escape with their dignity? The overtones are positively Biblical, except that the Senator should properly have escaped by ordering an aide to perform the service, who could be subsequently quartered, and sent to the far corners of the kingdom in order to organize a pogrom against Blacks, or Gays, or Black gays, which is obviously as out as out can get - and of course, liberals whose tolerance of alternative lifestyles is how this whole deplorable thing gort started to begin with, etc., etc.

I think you get my drift here Amicus, what really happened is the Senator has a fetish for blowing Black guys, which is really just cathartically confronting his fear of Blacks to whom he secretely feels inferior, and doing so, demystifying them, and walking away with his head hedl high - but no FUCKING way could he ever, in a million, billion years admit this to his homophobic, White Seperatist constituancy and not find his cat naild tothe door the next morning - at minimum.

Yeah, that group confromity, it's odd how that works. Thing is, Liberals tend to champion individual prerogotive, including the right of White Senators to to blow big Black guys - though not in public bathrooms - and yes, we do that AS A GROUP - as opposed to pandering to the vilest of violent human predjudices so we can fly around the country in private jet blowing large Black guys in public restrooms while getting paid on the public dime.

Otherwise it's easier to argue with conservatives, who will as a group agree that up is down and down is up, if it means they'll get something out of it, but are AS INDIVIDUALS, often amenable to reason - as opposed to liberals, who tend to be mulish, opinionated know-it-alls, and cannot agree on which way is up, even when they're both looking right at it, or even whether the concept of "up" and "down" is a valid one.

WRJames said:

Would anyone care to define what they mean by freedom? We talk a lot about freedom -- but how free are we really? How about some examples of what our supposed freedom is? Mostly, it is an illusion. Our shackles may not be as evident, they may be more subtle, but they are still there.

We have a social order that plays very subtly -- sometimes not so subtly -- on our hopes, our fears, our desires, our pain -- to keep us in line, to make sure our quest from freedom does not go to far. And when that fails, there is the law -- not just criminal law, but countless regulations intended to protect us from ourselves.

Click to expand...

~~~

WRJames said:

Would anyone care to define what they mean by freedom? We talk a lot about freedom -- but how free are we really?

Click to expand...

Begin by acknowledging that each human being is born an individual, unique and different from any ever born before.

Acknowledge also that this new individual, to live, requires air, food, water and shelter to nurture and protect that 'life' he has been given.

Since newborn humans do not spring from the womb capable of provided themselves with those 'necessities' of life, those who created that life are obligated to care for it, nurture it and sustain it.

It is the basic nature of all animals, and as ssxve pointed out, we are animals, 'rational', sentient animals, unlike any other species, to care for their young.

One needs to insert an understanding of 'values' here, values are those things that benefit human life, such as food, water, shelter and so on.

By definition, that life requires sustenance for survival, then the 'right' to that sustenance is innate and the 'freedom' to acquire those necessities, by definition is also innate and unalienable.

The 'freedoms' you ask about are simply 'rights' and 'values' required by the nature of being human to acquire the necessary things for survival.

All values, all rights, all freedoms are inherent in the individual, not the group, but the individual human being and each individual human being has equal rights and freedoms just by being born.

Mutual association with others, a group, relies on a mutually beneficial arrangement to maximize the survival of the individual by cooperation with others.

That, of course, is thumbnail and off the top of my head, but if you are really interested, just the definitions of some of the terms will lead you wherever you wish to go to answer your questions.

Amicus...

Click to expand...

ami By definition, that life requires sustenance for survival, then the 'right' to that sustenance is innate

no human has an "innate" [born with] right to sustenance; for there to be a right, it has to be enforceable against someone, i.e. in the usual terms, for every 'right', there is a duty. For X's right to free speech, is a duty of government and citizens not to hinder X in exercize of it. but of course the government has other duties, e.g., national defense, and that may trump free speech.

the 'right' to sustenance is not different in kind from right of free speech.
IF you have a society with adequate food, etc. then your parents and your community have some duties to feed you, subject to their other duties. they might, for instance, have a duty to feed the soldiers defending them. your parents might both be dead, and the community has more pressing tasks, like survival; the duties to the newborn are conditional on lots of things.


ami and the 'freedom' to acquire those necessities, by definition is also innate and unalienable.

innate freedom is a nonsense concept. sort of like innate success.

innate freedom to acquire necessities? if what you said earlier is correct there would be an innate right to *have* necessities of life. but neither is innate. the right of children to be fed exists in a well functioning, prosperous society that imposes duties on parents and the community.

however you, amicus, want to stress that it's the birth of an individual; i submit that individual has no innate 'right of life', upon taking his first breath. he might be on a desert island. he might be in a community with lots of AIDS and a sick mom; when she dies, there may be no relative around. so the kid dies.

now that is tragic, a society that can't care for an orphan; it should be fixed. but it does no good to claim that orphan, just by being born, has 'rights' that can be enforced against anyone.

===
in any case, none of this is at the core of amicus 'wish list'; he wants an innate right to property, and Jefferson etc., unlike his treatment of 'life,' did NOT insert a right to property in the list of unalienable rights. why, because it's not.

Pure: "...i submit that individual has no innate 'right of life',..."

~~~

Mark that well lurkers and readers, you have no innate right to your life.

That is the core evil of Pure and Xssve who believe your right to your own life is in the hands of others...the group, the collective, the greater good, but not yours, who possess that life.

Amicus

WRJames said:

Would anyone care to define what they mean by freedom?

Click to expand...

Good question. At the very base, though, and unless the individual is in a coma, doesn't the individual have the freedom of choice--the freedom to choose for him/herself what she/he is going to do in the next second of time? The choices can often be constricted by external forces or all be choices one would rather not make. But even when in a free fall, don't you have a choice on moving this or that muscle and in that free fall or when totally paralized still have the choice of what to think of in the next second?

Haven't thought about where it develops from there, if at all. Waiting to see if even that is valid.

Pure: "...i submit that individual has no innate 'right of life',..."

~~~

ami Mark that well lurkers and readers, you have no innate right to your life.

That is the core evil of Pure and Xssve who believe your right to your own life is in the hands of others...the group, the collective, the greater good, but not yours, who possess that life.


"innate" means 'simply by virtue of being born'; arguably there are no innate rights, and ami has given no reason for thinking so.

so, just for the record: individuals in healthy societies in normal circumstances can be said to have a "right to life", which in NOT innate.
this right is indicated, defined and bestowed in their constitution (or its ratification), legal traditions, bills of rights. etc.

in the US, generally, you have a right not to be summarily executed; generally you have a right to a trial. but not always. in a summary court martial on the battlefield you may be executed by the officer whose order you do not comply with.

ami [under pure's proposal,] your right to your own life is in the hands of others.

this is a misleading way of speaking: ALL rights are, so to say, in the hands of others. does a single person, marooned on a desert island have a "right" to enough food? no.

to have a right, is for others to have a duty. there must be others.
to use the example i gave already. consider an AIDs baby born to a dying single AIDS mom who's on her own in a remote area of Africa.

after she dies, there is no one around with duties toward the baby. maybe the little one will be raised by wild animals, or maybe eaten by them. we hope it survives, but all its "rights" are moot, inoperative, since no one else is around.

IF rights were INNATE, that would not be the case; we'd still be saying the orphan baby has this right. but it's rather meaningless.

to put it simply: suppose no one is around, how exactly would your right be violated: there are not enough coconuts on the desert island. can you say to God or the sky or the coconut tree: "I have my rights to food, enough to live on! You may not violate them; Hand over some coconuts." It's quite meaningless. Could we say your right mysteriously "gets violated", even though no body does anything? That's silly.

Had you ever displayed even the slightest interest in an understanding of a philosophy alien to yours I would have gladly provided direction for you.

Instead, your steady and unerring direction has been to confront any concept involving the primacy of individual existence and the inherent right to life that I assert.

Then you throw in your, 'desert Island' and coconuts, the usual, 'lifeboat ethics' fallacious analogy to thwart any assertion of inherent characteristics of life. Sophomoric at best and weak in the knees.

I could have used the term, 'axiomatic', or, 'self evident', but you have previously rejected those as non existent, thus I thought to use, 'innate', and approach from a different direction. I see it made no difference in your blindered intent to confront.

When there was a 'God' hovering about, life, in the womb and at birth, was sacred and protected. In the absence, in modern times of such a paternal deity, man is left to his own intellectual resources to define, comprehend and place value on human life.

Without a God, you have failed. You simply deny the value of human life.

Life, however you choose to define it, exists only within that single entity that possesses it. Who does that life belong to? If not the one that possesses it, then whom?

And if one is born, has life, does not one have a self evident ownership of that life and consequently the 'right' to it?

Of course one does, except for dummies like you.

Amicus....

What you seem to be missing MiAmico is that the 'bill of rights' is circumscribed and written entirely in terms of society.

What you can't or won't accept is that your 'right to life' (pursuit of happiness etc) is wholly in terms of the society into which you are born.

Your 'inalienable rights' are as defined by society. Others in that society are proscribed from withholding or denying your right to liberty, justice, freedom &c.

There is nothing God (or logic) given in any of it. The only thing provided by God (and logic) is life and the eventuality of death.

You are entirely free to go find some unowned land and build yourself a cabin and have as many wife/slaves as you can convince.

What you are not allowed to do, by your own definition and practice, is take the parts of agreed society that you wish and abandon the rest.

Take it all or nothing. That's your Hobson's freedom. Everything else is politics.

And if one is born, has life, does not one have a self evident ownership of that life and consequently the 'right' to it?

i don't know if it makes sense to say you 'own' your life as a baby; you certainly don't get to decide, say, if you'll have a heart replacement.

ami, a right must be asserted against someone. OR, violations of rights HAVE TO BE, by persons. and remedies must exist-- should a cop, say, invade your home, for no reason, you have appeals to the justice system.

as i said, the AIDS baby, just orphaned, no relatives, and communities in shreds has no one to care for it. it likely will die, unless the workers of some 'charity', like "feed the children," finds it. but no one has a duty, in this case, so there is no right. Feed the children does not have a duty to turn up at this time. We can't fault them if they don't.

Well -- let me say that I don't think that "freedom" is that same thing at all as "rights". And most of our "freedom of choice" is of the multiple choice variety -- we can choose one from column A and two from column B, we can vote for TweedleDe or TweedleDum -- can can watch any one of a 100 channels of televised sleep inducement.

Just think of the expectations we put on our children -- their busy days going from one worthy activity to another. I know myself in high school I would begin the day with band practice a 7:30, then school, then a club, then track practice -- an hour or so for dinner, then a seminar, a play practice -- and that was forty years ago. If anything, it has gotten worse. When my children were in high school, any one of those activities was all consuming in its time demands. Is that freedom? How many of you are spending an hour or two commuting each day, from a house you can't afford to a job that demands more and more from you, because your employer knows that you cannot afford to tell them to kiss off. Is that freedom?

Granted, we are not in chains, not locked out, not whipped regularly (except for those who do this a recreation?) -- we live with great abundance. But we are enslaved to our wealth.