Are people afraid to be truly free?

[paphian]

Conversation in another thread today has me thinking about this. Lemme 'splain.

Having freedom is something many people claim to want, and many others wish they had. Depending on one's country of birth or residence, or they way in which one was raised, you may feel more or less free. There are many countries now considered part of the old-styled "free world", but the level of freedom for individuals--as guaranteed by a constitution or other hopefully enforceable means--varies quite widely. So does the general public choice of how free to be within constitutional constraints.

Freedom, to me, means being as much being free of "government as parent" as it does to have constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. It means learning about the world around you, and keeping up with the developments in the world around you. You have to do those things to make intelligent voting choices on your own rather than because Republican, Democrat, Labour, Green or other party is your party of preference, and that's what they've told you to choose.

True freedom carries awesome responsibility, also. You have to be willing to bear the consequence of your own decisions and actions. You wouldn't be able to go running off to Uncle Sam (or whatever you call your own gummint) to bail you out of trouble. Just like running to your parents for help when you're a kid, running to your government has hidden costs (as well as very real ones) that a truly free and independent person shouldn't be willing to bear, IMHO.

Don't mistake my meaning. I'm not advocating anarchy here. Some laws are necessary and even pretty unequivocally "good." But I'm certainly a proponent of the idea that "government governs best that governs least"--to paraphrase some poor slob whose original statement I've probably butchered and whose name I don't recall.

If being "truly free," in the sense of less government regulation, restriction, taxes, protection and the like were possible, starting tomrrow, could you handle it? Could you give up the current party system (whatever that is or equates to in your own country) for a true one-person, one-vote participatory democracy? Perhaps even beyond that, could you trade your current system of government for a true "libertarian" system where you maximise individual freedom in trade for an absolute minimum of government?

So...

Are you really free, now? And, more to the point I'm really after exploring here, are you really ready to be truly free?

 

[riff]

I am working on it. My goal is self-actualization.

 

[Guest]

 

[miles]

Many people give lip service to freedom, but what they really want is security and for government to provide it. And I don't mean national defense or law enforcement.

 

[riff]

funny, and I'm working on self-exploration.

To explore is I think to actualize. Process. Process.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I want anarchy. I'm all for total personal freedom to whatever I want.

Of course, I've got the joss to claw my way to a comfortable enough position on the top that I don't have to worry about the rank and file taking whatever they want from me.

There is no such thing as pure freedom amongst social animals. Accept it. Move on.

 

[paphian]

<snip>

There is no such thing as pure freedom amongst social animals. Accept it. Move on.

Interesting statement, KM. What is it that makes you so sure? And what's your definition of "pure freedom?"

 

[Laurel]

People want everyone else to be free to live the way they think is right.

There are gun activists want people to be free to own guns, but don't want them to be free to have abortions.

There are pro-choicers who want to keep abortion safe & legal, but want to outlaw hate speech or hardcore pornography.

And on and on. All of them miss the point. If you believe in the right to bear arms yet think there should be limits on the First Amendment, then you are not a Freedom advocate. If you believe in the right of authors and artists to express themselves as they see fit, but don't think pot should be legal, you are not a Freedom advocate.

No one seems to realize that freedom means giving everyone the freedom to make poor choices - to be immoral, to be stupid, to be crass. So long as your poor choice doesn't directly harm others, you should be free to make that choice.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Doing anything you want whenever you want however you want with whatever you want with whomever you want without fear of societal sanctions, governmental sanctions, or interpersonal sanctions.

Even if we were ruled by total anarchy, you still aren't going to do the wild monkey dance with the female of your choice on the table in the middle of Christmas dinner.

Everyone will always curb their id in order to function as a part of a societal group, no matter how dysfunctional.

Anarchy is a ridiculous joke based on the self-same utopian idea that Engels came up with: that human beings can live together in relative harmony where everyone has integrity, character, honor, honesty, a work ethic, and selflessness.

Never happen.

If offer you Lit as an example. There are three rules regarding behavior here. No spam, not physical threats, no posting of another user's personal information. This place is as close to anarchy as you're going to get. You are free to say anything you want to say.

I still curb my tongue because I am not free to say what I want to say at all times without social sanctions being applied. For instance, I made a few remarks concerning another erstwhile poster here, immediately edited, but not quickly enough to receive a tongue lashing from a den mother.

Pure freedom is an illusion.

 

[heterotic]

Interesting statement, KM. What is it that makes you so sure? And what's your definition of "pure freedom?"

They worked that all out a couple hundred years ago. "Natural liberty" is the freedom all people are born with, to do whatever they will, might making right. "Civil liberty" is what happens when we enter into contracts with other people to have as much freedom as we can without infringing on other people's liberties. I think we're losing civil liberties because people do want security more, and I'd like to have a more law enforcement, national defense, and little else government.

 

[Unclebill]

Why do you make it so difficult?

True freedom is in fact merely freedom from coercion, i. e., no one can legitimately force your independent choices. As paphian states, the corollary of freedom is responsibility, i. e., the individual is responsible for the consequences of their choices and are obliged to live with those results be they approval and acceptance or rejection, repudiation and disdain.

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
. . . There is no such thing as pure freedom amongst social animals. Accept it. Move on.

Wrong, KM; see above. Learn it. Accept it. Appreciate it. Move on.

Originally posted by KillerMuffin
Doing anything you want whenever you want however you want with whatever you want with whomever you want without fear of societal sanctions, governmental sanctions, or interpersonal sanctions

This is a statement that positively reeks of Liberalism in its most self-serving form; it is the desire for freedom from consequences which is only possible in the irrational mind. No reasoned rational thinking mind can divorce itself from reality and expect to act without consequences. But the desire expressed in this statement is precisely that wish stated succinctly.

This is one of the fundamental problems with Liberalism and all other variants of collectivism; they seek to evade reality; they desire to have their cake and eat it, too. They wish for no consequences to their choices, actions and desires.

If you observe carefully those of the collectivist mentality, they are always excusing their failed programs, plans, and efforts by offering that despite the abysmal failures, their intentions were noble. They seek to be judged on their intentions, not on the outcome of the horrors they have inflicted on mankind. Somehow, because their intentions are noble (they want good things to happen), they are not accountable for the disasters they create.

I suspect this is a product of a mind clouded by the fog of msyticism, the mentality that wishing will make it so, that one need only desire something with enough intensity and duration and the object of one's desires will be manifest. The only real problem is that reality is a harsh and relentless adversary of those who pursue such inane ideas.

I was once offered a deep philosophical concept when I idly stated that I wished for something; that marvelous insight offered was, "Wish in one hand and shit in the other. See which hand is filled first." Sage advice it has been.

 

[Lost Cause]

In my conversations with people, some are afraid to be free! They are not sure if they can accept the responsibilities for their actions. I mean actions have consequences, with no right or wrong results, to some that is terrifiying. Most people are like sheep, going with the herd, if you opened the gate wide, they would not go out of the safety of the fence, even if eventually, they will be mutton.

 

[scylis]

i am Nanoc the Barbarian! i can shrug off a blow that could fell a normal man! unfettered by your civilized ways, i shall crush you. it is useless for you to resist, for i will have soon conquered you comepletely.

 

[Guest]

I want anarchy. I'm all for total personal freedom to whatever I want.

Of course, I've got the joss to claw my way to a comfortable enough position on the top that I don't have to worry about the rank and file taking whatever they want from me.

There is no such thing as pure freedom amongst social animals. Accept it. Move on.

Bless the goddess Muff, I always like yer answers.

MUFF FOR PRESIDENT, MUFF FOR PRESIDENT!

Seriously (does anybody know what that word means?), thank you for who you are.....

*smile*

MoonWolf

 

[Sillyman]

Unclebill, I think "Liberalism" has very little to do with this argument, whether liberals can't understand consequences or not. True people clouded with idealism will make a less than workable political model, but I've seen that run both ways.


Freedom as KM described it, yeah, that's never going to really happen. I don't think that means anything less than that is only some sort of bullshit freedom though. I don't buy that anarchy would suck because people would still have standards and values, being able to do whatever you fucking feel like is not the point of anarchy. It's about being the only person who has control over your life ultimately.

 

[heterotic]

I don't think a completely free anarchy like that would be cool at all. If everybody was running around giving in to their basest desires, stealing, raping, killing, plundering and burning, the internet wouldn't work anymore.

 

[Sillyman]

First of all, let me say anarchy would be violent. It would be very rough. Fights would break out. People would get killed. Justice would probably be handled by mobs.

But I don't think everyone is naturally just going to immediately lose all sense of moral values either. Most people do not just kill and rapine for no reason, and I don't think "because I can" would be suitable in most cases.

Thinking it would be immediate love and harmony or even eventually some utopia would be stupidly idealistic. But I think it has the same even chance of working with what we have now.

 

[MechaBlade]

Thought this'd be about religion.

I am free. For the most part. Paphian seems to be leaning towards a libertarian style of government, which anarchist could easily argue is not free because you're not free to, for example, kill someone.

This is why my freedom is insured by our current system of government. If someone tries to infringe upon my freedoms, the police will take care of them. If I fall upon hard times, I can count on welfare to hold me over until my next job. If I want to have kids and school them for free, or if I want to drive on a street without potholes, the government will do this for me. These are freedoms, and aside from a few laws I dislike, I feel "truly free."

Everyone's definition of "truly free" is different.

 

[SINthysist]

Laurel glosses over one other fact.

There are a lot of free-speech Liberals who would stop at nothing to totally outlaw guns. But the Conservative Supreme Court says yes, make that virtual kiddie porn, It’s an art form.

She’s a hypocrite.




Look at the world. Most of the people live under some sort of strong-man rule. Look at how quickly we surrender our freedoms (Ironically, usually to keep the kids safe, the very ones we should be preserving freedom for!).

People must be afraid of freedom.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Sillyman
Unclebill, I think "Liberalism" has very little to do with this argument, whether liberals can't understand consequences or not. True people clouded with idealism will make a less than workable political model, but I've seen that run both ways.

It's not that Liberals or collectivists don't know or realize that there are consequences; it's that they seek exemption from those consequences. They wish to have freedom and make their choices (as well as the choices for others) and yet they wish to be absolved of all responsibility and repercussions of those choices. And that is totally irrational because it contradicts reality.

Originally posted by Sillyman
Freedom as KM described it, yeah, that's never going to really happen. I don't think that means anything less than that is only some sort of bullshit freedom though. I don't buy that anarchy would suck because people would still have standards and values, being able to do whatever you fucking feel like is not the point of anarchy. It's about being the only person who has control over your life ultimately.

First, what KM described is the Liberal concept of freedom, i. e., absolution from consequences or freedom from responsibility.

On the idea of anarchy: Wrong. One of the definitions of anarchy is the absence of any common standard or purpose. With no common standard of value or purpose, there can be no basis for the establishment and execution of justice. Thus society deteriorates to warring factions whose primary purpose is survival. And you don't think that would suck? This pretty well describes the Palestinians' existence today! This virtually negates the ability to create a stable organized societal system in which order can be established and prosperity can flourish.

Originally posted by SINthysist
Laurel glosses over one other fact.

There are a lot of free-speech Liberals who would stop at nothing to totally outlaw guns. But the Conservative Supreme Court says yes, make that virtual kiddie porn, It's an art form.

She's a hypocrite.

I disagree; based on discussions I've had with Laurel, I attribute it to naiveté, misinformation or miseducation, not hypocrisy. From my contact with her, Laurel is NOT a hypocrite. Interestingly, though, most Liberals are because they mouth words advocating freedom when the things they advocate are in fact the very things that most diminish and subvert freedom.

Originally posted by SINthysist
Look at the world. Most of the people live under some sort of strong-man rule. Look at how quickly we surrender our freedoms (Ironically, usually to keep the kids safe, the very ones we should be preserving freedom for!).

People must be afraid of freedom.

I disagree; I think it is the corollary, responsibility and accountability, which they fear. The exercise of freedom without the shackles of responsibility is a very attractive proposition, however irrational it might be. Collectivism offers the illusion of freedom (in the bonds of slavery) in exchange for having all of one's needs provided by the labor of others.

 

[lavender]

 

[paphian]

People want everyone else to be free to live the way they think is right.

There are gun activists want people to be free to own guns, but don't want them to be free to have abortions.

There are pro-choicers who want to keep abortion safe & legal, but want to outlaw hate speech or hardcore pornography.

And on and on. All of them miss the point. If you believe in the right to bear arms yet think there should be limits on the First Amendment, then you are not a Freedom advocate. If you believe in the right of authors and artists to express themselves as they see fit, but don't think pot should be legal, you are not a Freedom advocate.

No one seems to realize that freedom means giving everyone the freedom to make poor choices - to be immoral, to be stupid, to be crass. So long as your poor choice doesn't directly harm others, you should be free to make that choice.

'Zackly! Thanks, Laurel, that's a great addition to what I was saying.

 

[paphian]

Doing anything you want whenever you want however you want with whatever you want with whomever you want without fear of societal sanctions, governmental sanctions, or interpersonal sanctions.

Even if we were ruled by total anarchy, you still aren't going to do the wild monkey dance with the female of your choice on the table in the middle of Christmas dinner.

Everyone will always curb their id in order to function as a part of a societal group, no matter how dysfunctional.

Anarchy is a ridiculous joke based on the self-same utopian idea that Engels came up with: that human beings can live together in relative harmony where everyone has integrity, character, honor, honesty, a work ethic, and selflessness.

Never happen.

If offer you Lit as an example. There are three rules regarding behavior here. No spam, not physical threats, no posting of another user's personal information. This place is as close to anarchy as you're going to get. You are free to say anything you want to say.

I still curb my tongue because I am not free to say what I want to say at all times without social sanctions being applied. For instance, I made a few remarks concerning another erstwhile poster here, immediately edited, but not quickly enough to receive a tongue lashing from a den mother.

Pure freedom is an illusion.

I have no problem with anything you say here, KM. However, I did specifically say I was not referring to anarchy.

 

[Sillyman]

I have no problem with anything you say here, KM. However, I did specifically say I was not referring to anarchy.

Please forgive me for dragging this post into a discussion about anarchy. I do not mean to hijack the thread.

People are not merely afraid of accountability in my mind they are afraid of their neighbors ability to excercise the same freedom without infringing on theirs.

If I had the legal right to force any woman who crossed my path to have sex with me, whether she wanted it or not, would I use it? No. Would anyone here still trust me with that sort of privelige? No.

 

[paphian]

Well, I was gonna try and answer all posts

But the amount of quoting was gonna be unmanageable.

A few things:

I'm most emphatically not advocating anarchy. KM and others raised that issue, and it's too far gone towards one end of the scale, IMO. What I am saying is that I think that there's a "greater degree of freedom" that was perhaps even in the minds of at least some of the framers of the US constitution, than we currently enjoy.

Uncle Bill got one important thing pretty much on-target when he said that the corollary of increased freedom is increased responsibility. I strongly agree not only with that, but also with the idea that was expressed that people are more afraid of the responsibility than anything else. It baffles me that this is something people fear.

Heterotic made a couple of good points regarding "natural liberty" and "civil liberty." Although I'm not sure if I agree with those names, I think I get the concept he's expressing, and I think he's generally right.

Lost Cause's point about sheep is too true, in my experience, and very sad.

MechaBlade, my question to you in response to your post is: "Why should government be what we rely on to do these things?" In most every case you cite, you can find examples of private non-profit organizations or even profit-making companies that can do it as well as--or often better than--government, and usually less expensively. Why not get the government out of it?

Cool posts, lit folks. Certainly food for my thoughts.

A couple of new thoughts induced by the posters:

We spend almost the entire first 20 years of our lives attempting to be "grown up" enough to get out from under mom and dad, and live on our own. Why do so many then surrender the freedom that they've been working so hard to obtain to the dictates of religion or government?

The complaint was made that "Liberals" (and the capital 'L' is important) too often fail to assume responsibility for failed actions and programs based on their intentions being good. I don't agree with this, necessarily, but can certainly see how it seems that way to many. I'll offer the following opinion: In the USA (can't speak to other countries,m since I don't live there), all too often "Conservatives" (and here, the capital 'C' is important), fall back on the myth of "family values" and the edicts of a few relatively narrow sects of Christian fundamentalism to justify their failed actions and programs. I submit that the actions of both groups are inherently flawed, because both groups seek to get all others to conform to their "pre-designed" idea of things.

I'd say "true freedom" not only requires responsibility, and courage, but the willingness to "think outside convention" and determine what's broadly "right" or "wrong" based on a general respect for the freedom of others, not an agenda dictated by the past.