How much Freedom?

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by caveman

Out of curiosity, how would you guys define freedom?

On one level, being able to do whatever you want with your life (but still following some basis of what is considered acceptable) - this is the minimum level.
On another level, not being constrained by others or by anything more than the laws of physics.

Sadly, we really have neither.There's an illusion of freedom if you have money, but if people were truly free, that would be unnecessary.

[ZenitYerkes]

Freedom is the ability to act according to the own will.

That's absolute freedom.

But if you were to ask me about real freedom, I'd take a scissor and begin by cutting out anything we can't do due to our own limitations -let them be physical, mental or personal.

That's the basic freedom we all start from, then our environment, culture and society show us limits we admit to be true.

But those could be perfectly ignored.

[Ryūkage]

Personally? I feel as though absolute freedom is impossible. No matter what you do in your life it seems as though your always bound by something...

If you want to get all scientific for example; we're all bound by the laws of physics, we cannot simply do as we feel, like we can in our imaginations. In fact, to be truly free of all restrictions, one would essentially have to be Omnipotent, and that in regards leads me to my main point:

Even in our every day lives, I think too much freedom granted to people would cause them to abuse it... Although i'm sure there are many who would enjoy freedom only for good intentions, there are many more who would excercise it in a way that could in fact compromise the freedom of others, and not just other humans, but pretty much everything on this planet.

I suppose the point i'm trying to get by here is: Can people be trusted with freedom?

Perhaps its the fault of our society that makes one question whether or not people won't just abuse freedom if they were granted it in absolution. I guess that's what people who created laws were thinking.. but can you imagine what the world would be like if laws just disappeared overnight? The human race has sadly become naturally aggressive in the later stages of their evolution and laws are like the chain holding us down, but the more the animal remains held back and restricted by force, the more it's anger will slowly build up, and one day it will break free and that anger will explode..

Anyway, i'm getting too deep into this, just thought i'd give my opinion based on what i've observed from the average human in today's world.. Some say freedom is an unquestionable right to all creatures, but the truth is, even freedom doesn't come without consequences.

[ZenitYerkes]

If what restrains you from attacking me is a piece of paper, just get the hell away from me.

Really, if you are speaking of people abusing of their freedom and then mention how restrictions are needed; think how such restrictions can only be imposed -do you know the words "Law enforcement"?

There are "natural laws", something inherent to our existence and that in spite of the difficulties can be sorted out with patience and perseverance; just like we, after a whole history of failed attempts, managed to fly.

But others, such as "social laws" are imposed not by the person themselves, but an authority, peer pressure or coercion -this situation means that others are using their freedom to restrain yours.

That's how laws work.

Not that I mean that people are always reasonable and will always behave and use their freedom properly. Some limitations to that freedom can be good for a community, like "Don't kill" or "Respect your fellow man", but I feel first, mankind is not a race of bloodthirsty bastards; and second, that such rules should be not forced but shown beneficial; they are common sense when you need and rely on the rest to survive.

Be self-sufficient, rely on nobody -you can be a bastard to whoever you want as long as the rest aren't as strong as you are.

Freedom is a tricky terrain, specially when you remember the freedom to limit other's freedom is there.

[Banefull]

There are different stages of motivation.

At the very bottom is "What is in it for me." This is what Ryukage was most likely referring to. There are some people that, when law is removed, will proceed to steal and plunder.

Next you have the "Good girl/boy stage." A child does what his/her parents says because it makes him/her "good." in the eyes of everyone else. Basically to "feed the ego."

Then there is the "Law." People follow what the laws says because they understand the need for reciprocal treatment to keep society from decending into chaos.

Then there is "Love." With love, we act for the sake of others.


This is basically how we grow up. Some people reach "adulthood" but never grow up. They go through life and would not hesitate to do harm for their own gain if there were no consequences (law).

[ZenitYerkes]

What you named, Banefull, is the process of formation of the personal will -from Anomie (lack of references, guided by pleasure/pain), Heteronomy (reward/punishment), Socionomy (acceptation/rejection), Autonomy (the only reference is oneself). Respectively, they are based on instinctive egoism, authority, dependence and interdependence -what, as you pointed out, can only be reached through love.

The problem is not that people grow into adulthood without being mature; the problem is that it is not needed in this society.

Go to Native America, and even children had a sense of community and transcendence. Go to Victorian England and you'll see people following the "stiff upper lip".

Go back to the present, and...

Well, most of us are still in Anomy.

[Banefull]

Even in those Native American tribes there were still those who had "lesser" motivations. We still have people in our society who are motivated by love. Look around you at the poeple here on ToS.

We do have a lot less people with "higher" forms of motivation these days. The big shift happened rather recently with this movement towards individualism. It used to be expected of a person to act in a certain way. That "certain way" often included reaching higher forms of motivation.

What comes to mind is an interesting quesiton, "Are we required to seek higher forms of motivation?" Is it ok for society to coerce others to progress to higher forms of motivation as perhaps some older societies did?

[ZenitYerkes]

More than coercion, it was a need before. You either worked hard to hunt and make tools or perished. You either had good relationships with the rest, or at least know how to solve conflicts, or perished.

Otherwise most of clans would have split up and their members would have died of cold, hunger or disease.

Now, should we force it?

...it would be like straightening a building which foundations were already crooked.

Like teaching moral education in a world of "Indulge yourself, buy X!".

Such behaviors are either natural, or something is just going wrong here.

[Tsyal Makto]

I still think how much freedom/consequences/motivation someone chooses to have for themselves should be that individual's choice. The problem is the society, not the person. Case-in-point, the current pyramid, stratified, hierarchy structure much of the world has taken, and it sounds like Banefull is trying to defend. It forces people to follow rules passed down by fiat, created by people who live in a completely different reality than the people they make rules for. Most of the laws and de facto restrictions we live by are created either by corporations, religious officials, or governments filled with the most corrupt bastards the world has to offer. We are forced to live by their standards, what they see best for their world (do you think they give two ****s about our world? NO!), not our own standards and wants for the world. Now I ask you, do you trust these people to tell you how to live your life? To run your world? On the other hand, egalitarian socities have proven to be a success compared to what we have now, even though individuals were relatively freer than today. Why did egalitarian societies in the past still function so well, even though there was no strong, enforced power structure, which the current culture always tells us is necessary for our world to function? Because everyone lived and progressed together, the people were able to make their own standards to live by, and each individual was able to use their own strengths and weaknesses to pick their own place in society and contribute from their. There was no central power telling them what to do - they did what they wanted to do, and the fruits of doing what they wanted was their contribution to their society. When a person is truly free to make their own decisions, they will usually make good choices. It is only the current dominant culture that wants you to believe that you are an evil, conniving little monster that would cause death and destruction if allowed to run free. This is also the same culture that is constantly trying to put down the "noble savage" philosophy. Maybe they're trying to hide something?

Then the question arises, can we return to an egalitarian, circular society? Is our current hierarchical social structure necessary for a species to progress to our level of advancement? Some would say yes, citing the relative advancement of ants/bees and their "hive mind," but I say no. Bees and ants are not cerebral, we are. We are each individually capable of making decisions that a whole hive mind of bees and ants are necessary to make. It takes a whole ant colony to design their dwelling, while it only takes a single human engineer to design buildings. Not to mention the fact that a news report just came out that stated that Native Americans may have visited Europe 1000 years ago. They were circular, tribal, egalitarian societies, and they advanced even faster than us!!. Another example of the success of circular societies, this one more modern, from the Spanish Civil War, was described by George Orwell in "Homage to Catalonia." In both of these cases individuals were freer.

So obviously we each have tremendous power with our individual minds, the power to create or destroy, to love or to hate. It's only a matter of establishing a social structure that helps bring our best traits out. I would venture to say that the iron-fisted social structures we have now have utterly failed at that. If not we wouldn't have a world constantly at war, an environment on the brink, bigotry, and millions starving in the street. The few in power - the religious officials, the corporate CEOs, the war profiteers, the megalomaniacs - have capitalized on establishing an authoritarian society that brings out our worst traits. Then they supress us, telling us that these traits are not being caused by said social structure, but are in fact our "nature."

They tell us that freedom is the virus, and that they are the cure, when in fact the exact opposite is true. In truth we are perfectly capable of living much freer than this society tells us we should, and still progress to a better future.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I still think how much freedom/consequences/motivation someone chooses to have for themselves should be that individual's choice. The problem is the society, not the person. Case-in-point, the current pyramid, stratified, hierarchy structure much of the world has taken, and it sounds like Banefull is trying to defend.

I am not out to defend the status quo. I think something has gone horribly wrong in the last century also. What I am up in arms against is the idea that "society only exists as an entity that is out to get you." I am here to defend the idea that we can have a good mass society that doesn't resort to extremes such as communism.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

It forces people to follow rules passed down by fiat, created by people who live in a completely different reality than the people they make rules for. Most of the laws and de facto restrictions we live by are created either by corporations, religious officials, or governments filled with the most corrupt bastards the world has to offer. We are forced to live by their standards, what they see best for their world (do you think they give two ****s about our world? NO!), not our own standards and wants for the world. Now I ask you, do you trust these people to tell you how to live your life? To run your world?

I trust those whom I see as having the proper motivations. I trust those who are motivated by love. I still question what they say as they can still make mistakes; however, I do trust them. There are bad politicians, organizations, and officials motivated by greed. There are also good politicians, organizations, and officials who have genuine interests to serve. This is why we need a good education -- so we can determine who is properly motivated by love or improperly by greed.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

On the other hand, egalitarian socities have proven to be a success compared to what we have now, even though individuals were relatively freer than today. Why did egalitarian societies in the past still function so well, even though there was no strong, enforced power structure, which the current culture always tells us is necessary for our world to function? Because everyone lived and progressed together, the people were able to make their own standards to live by, and each individual was able to use their own strengths and weaknesses to pick their own place in society and contribute from their. There was no central power telling them what to do - they did what they wanted to do, and the fruits of doing what they wanted was their contribution to their society. When a person is truly free to make their own decisions, they will usually make good choices. It is only the current dominant culture that wants you to believe that you are an evil, conniving little monster that would cause death and destruction if allowed to run free. This is also the same culture that is constantly trying to put down the "noble savage" philosophy. Maybe they're trying to hide something?

This isn't what ancient tribal societies were like. What you describe is something akin to anarchy. Someone has to have the oversight to put together all of the factors of production -- land, labor, and capital. This individual existed even in ancient societies otherwise known as the leader of chieftan (plus a body of elders in some cases). He was the central power in all of this.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Then the question arises, can we return to an egalitarian, circular society? Is our current hierarchical social structure necessary for a species to progress to our level of advancement? Some would say yes, citing the relative advancement of ants/bees and their "hive mind," but I say no. Bees and ants are not cerebral, we are. We are each individually capable of making decisions that a whole hive mind of bees and ants are necessary to make. It takes a whole ant colony to design their dwelling, while it only takes a single human engineer to design buildings. Not to mention the fact that a news report just came out that stated that Native Americans may have visited Europe 1000 years ago. They were circular, tribal, egalitarian societies, and they advanced even faster than us!!. Another example of the success of circular societies, this one more modern, from the Spanish Civil War, was described by George Orwell in "Homage to Catalonia." In both of these cases individuals were freer.

So obviously we each have tremendous power with our individual minds, the power to create or destroy, to love or to hate. It's only a matter of establishing a social structure that helps bring our best traits out. I would venture to say that the iron-fisted social structures we have now have utterly failed at that. If not we wouldn't have a world constantly at war, an environment on the brink, bigotry, and millions starving in the street. The few in power - the religious officials, the corporate CEOs, the war profiteers, the megalomaniacs - have capitalized on establishing an authoritarian society that brings out our worst traits. Then they supress us, telling us that these traits are not being caused by said social structure, but are in fact our "nature."

They tell us that freedom is the virus, and that they are the cure, when in fact the exact opposite is true. In truth we are perfectly capable of living much freer than this society tells us we should, and still progress to a better future.

Things have gone wrong in the past few decades or centuries. More and more people with improper motivations have come to power; however, the good is still out there. As individuals, we need to practice better judgement and take the time to find out for ourselves who is properly motivated to serve; not just be satisfied with what the media says (FOX news *cough* *cough*, and yes I lean slightly towards liberal ).

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Banefull

I am not out to defend the status quo. I think something has gone horribly wrong in the last century also. What I am up in arms against is the idea that "society only exists as an entity that is out to get you." I am here to defend the idea that we can have a good mass society that doesn't resort to extremes such as communism.

No, not communism, but social democracy. If we insist on keeping mass society the gap between rich and poor must shrink. Think something like France or Canada. Opposed to what many people seem to believe (at least in the US), as the income disparity in a society decreases, people become more free. Again, take a look at France and Canada, and compare them to the US. The people in those countries are much freer than we are, mainly because they've learned to keep corporations and special interests in check, instead of letting them bend us all over and have their way with us, as we're currently doing in the US. Which is why I pity groups like the Tea Party. They want more freedom, but then turn around and defend corporations, the very people who are taking their freedom away.

But then again, that's regarding mass society. My personal belief is that society should become more localized, like some of the small villages that remain in Italy. Social bonds should be about quality, not quantity. That's why I support neo-tribalism. My utopia would be a world of "techno-tribes," sort of a tribalized version of the Venus Project. But to get their would involve cleansing the world of a lot of evils, which I am not sure we have the power to do at the moment.

Originally Posted by Banefull

I trust those whom I see as having the proper motivations. I trust those who are motivated by love. I still question what they say as they can still make mistakes; however, I do trust them. There are bad politicians, organizations, and officials motivated by greed. There are also good politicians, organizations, and officials who have genuine interests to serve. This is why we need a good education -- so we can determine who is properly motivated by love or improperly by greed.

I have extreme doubt about how many honest politicians are left. Sure, I bet plenty run, but how many honest ones actually end up getting elected? Or how many of them (the honest ones who manage to beat the odds) manage to stay honest and uncorrupt once they reach DC? The average yearly income of a US congressman is somewhere around $910,000. Now keep in mind that their actually salary itself is $165,000. Now, that other $745,000 doesn't just materialize out of thin air, does it?

Originally Posted by Banefull

This isn't what ancient tribal societies were like. What you describe is something akin to anarchy. Someone has to have the oversight to put together all of the factors of production -- land, labor, and capital. This individual existed even in ancient societies otherwise known as the leader of chieftan (plus a body of elders in some cases). He was the central power in all of this.

It wasn't as extreme as today. The leaders/councils of a tribe were more like soft overseers/moderators, not the strong rulers we have today. The people they effected with their decisions were the same people they interacted with on a daily basis/depended on. Plus they were also in a position where they would directly experience the consequences of their decisions. It wasn't like today where our leaders are completely out of touch with the people they rule over. Though this is really getting into auroraglacialis' territory. She's the one you should go to if you want more specific information on the matter. Either way their societies were both freer and more stable/healthy than ours.

And I actually wouldn't count out anarchy just yet (at least in localized societies). Real anarchy is not the chaos this culture wants you to think it is (that is, once all the ills of society are purged). Catalonia was real anarchy in action.

Originally Posted by Banefull

Things have gone wrong in the past few decades or centuries. More and more people with improper motivations have come to power; however, the good is still out there. As individuals, we need to practice better judgement and take the time to find out for ourselves who is properly motivated to serve; not just be satisfied with what the media says (FOX news *cough* *cough*, and yes I lean slightly towards liberal ).

Tru dat. If we ever plan on change coming to anything at all, the first thing that must happen is that this filth that's being pumped out on the airways day-in and day-out must either be ignored, or preferably silenced once and for all.

[Spock]

It's just biology again, your ecological niche differs from your realised niche.

[caveman]

My thoughts:

Freedom is to live without fear.

And that sums it all up for me.