An analysis of the illusion of freedom by chrisisall

I think this has been decaying for decades, but a higher level of freedom is possible. Emminant domain and police state could be ended. I think that you make some good points, and everyone in here in on the forum from England should take note: Blair's reforms will do this to you too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What I think of as "The Illusion of Freedom":

Charmin or Scott
Burger King or McDonalds
WalMart or Target
channel 11 or channel 2
minimum wage here or minimum wage there

Too many choices confuse me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:55 PM

Rue,

Yes.

The trick is the implied statement in the choice.

"Either you're an Elvis fan or a Beatles Fan" implies that you're a rock and roll fan. It's innocuous, so everyone ignores the subtle subliminal trick that has been pulled on them, and now it has worked it's way into our culture.

"You're a Walmart person or a Target person" implies you like big impersonal warehouses, and therefore are opposed to old style mainstreet America, or for that matter, shopping malls.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:21 AM

Exactly.
Free to choose.
But not free to choose the choices.

Kerry or Bush- there are a few thousand others that could really do the job, but this is our choice...

Hmmmm...pretty bars on this cage...

Free to a degree Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:07 AM

Yeah, so there is only one choice, in politics, which is the primary.

At some point I was here: You're either a Democrat or a Republican, ie. you're a Jeffersonian. It took me a while to realize that this was a trick, just not the trick I thought it was. I was a Jeffersonian, but then most people were. The trick was that third parties are really a mechanism for removing extremists from the political process, and marginalizing them completely. Simultaneously, it was also a device for vote splitting, so Perot=Clinton and Nader=Bush.

The only way we had to vote against people like this is to vote in the primary. Now, of course, voting is not power, it's the illusion of power, even so, in a totally open field. This is because you're power to vote can be monitored via opinion polls and the like and then supplanted by a machine which is buying votes. The only way to do beat it is to organize. A group of organized people who don't honestly answer polls are the only sure way to trick the machine.

Also, this, from Heinlein's book, and I paraphrase:

The power of the individual in politics is not one person one vote. It's proportional to the amount of time and energy invested by that person or on that person's behalf. People who work hard and organize, (like say Karl Rove) have a lot of influence relative to someone who only spends 15 minutes walking down to the polling station and pulling a lever every 4 years. This latter case is a trick, to make you think you're participating in democracy at a tiny cost to you, just what everyone wants to hear. The people, of course, who have the most power are those who have throngs of others working towards their goal. (People like Bush or Kerry)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 4:44 AM

JONUS

One day it's gonna be like the Independents vs. Alliance. I can't wait.

Attack me, not my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 5:37 AM

HARDWARE

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed lamb disputing the majority decision.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
One day it's gonna be like the Independents vs. Alliance. I can't wait.

We're fast approaching a time where more than two people in a household are going to have to work to support that household.

When it gets to where it's more than one family IN a household, I think your wait will be over...

Down with OCP Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed lamb disputing the majority decision.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

LOL

Did you think of that or is it a well known saying? love it

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:32 AM

CITIZEN

The law is like the doors to a rich Hotel.

Open to everyone...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:32 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

A police officer can pull you over and give you a ticket almost any time for almost any thing. There are so many traffic laws that you can't not break some every time you drive.

The Constitution itself was written at a time when slavery was acceptable. Even a great document like that can be 'interpreted' to curtail freedom...

The Constitution legalized slavery, involuntary servitude for prisoners, and voluntary servitude for everybody else via its Contract Clause. Today, contracts are used to perpetually enslave the sheeple, both private and governMENTAL.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Yeah, so there is only one choice, in politics, which is the primary.

The only way we had to vote against people like this is to vote in the primary. Now, of course, voting is not power, it's the illusion of power, even so, in a totally open field. This is because you're power to vote can be monitored via opinion polls and the like and then supplanted by a machine which is buying votes. The only way to do beat it is to organize. A group of organized people who don't honestly answer polls are the only sure way to trick the machine.

Black Box voting machines "flip" votes, so a loser (Bush) with 20% of the vote becomes a "winner" with 80% of the vote. No audit trail allowed, since that's "proprietary" business records.

Sheeple voters are so dumbed down they don't realize they have the power to vote EVERY DAY. Just one letter or phone call to a politician, to complain about a law, is worth 13,000 votes on election day. The People are the fourth branch of government - "We The People". Registered voters on jury duty can veto any law. Ballot box, jury box, bullet box - study the "Battle of Athens" Tennessee after World War 2, when 100 veterans opened fire on the sheriff's dept for election fraud. Citizens are mere slaves if they don't use they power of Citizen's Arrest against their Gangsta Govt.

Quote:
"Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. If we are, what are we going to do about it? Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty. Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities. One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers. Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits. Or a policeman will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure. Let's reject the police state."
—Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, MD (R-TX, 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President), speech in House of Representatives, United States Congress, "Are We Doomed To Be a Police State?" June 27, 2002
www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm

"I don't trust government. And neither should our citizens."
—US Senator Larry Craig, United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, "DOJ Oversight: Terrorism and Other Topics", testimony by US Attorney General John Ashcroft re President George Bush Jr.'s Executive Orders to "legalize torture" of US citizens for ALL "crimes" including "victimless 'crimes'", and refusal to release that memo (felony Contempt of Congress), C-SPAN2, June 8, 2004

"I saw two officers as before, who rode up to me, with their pistols in their hands, said God damn you stop, if go an Inch further, you are a dead Man, and swore if we did not turn in to that pasture, they would blow our brains out. Major Mitchel of the 5th Regt clapd his Pistol to my head, and said he was going to ask me some questions, if I did not tell the truth, he would blow my brains out. I told him I esteemed myself a man of truth, that he had stopped me on the highway, & made me a prisoner, I knew not by what right; I would tell him the truth; I was not afraid."
—Lt Col Paul Revere, owner of RevereWare, sworn affidavit: "Memorandum on Events of April 18, 1775" (declassified Top Secret), while under arrest (and subsequent escape) from Redcoat martial-law traffic police at Minute Man National Historic Park, Paul Revere Capture Site, on the eve of the American Revolutionary War and kicking off the Battle of Lexington and Concord, against the army, navy and courts of King George III, heriditary dictator of England who attempted "gun control" by an Assault Weapons Ban of defensive 50-caliber muskets and cannon, Paul Revere's Ride, by David Hackett Fischer
www.patriotresource.com/documents/revere.html

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-Amendment I, US Constitution

I don't pay traffic tickets anymore - I fight them in court, and criminally prosecute the cops who wrote the tickets. It's a lot more fun that way.
www.FasterThanASpeedingTicket.net
www.DealsGapDragon.com
www.AmericanAutobahn.com
(as seen on History Channel TV at a LEGAL 212mph on a public highway)

"I don't wanna get slapped around no more!"
-Mal, Train Job

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO:
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/8310.php
(try again later if server is crashed)

Pirate News TV
http://piratenews.org

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The law is like the doors to a rich Hotel.

Open to everyone...

Incredibly well put (and a lot shorter than my initial post

).

Not too concise Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:46 AM

CITIZEN

Can't take credit for it, it's a Lord Bernard Shaw Quote (I think).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:10 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
"Written laws, which were like spider's webs, and would catch, it is true, the weak and the poor, but easily be broken by the mighty and the rich."
-Anacharis, Plutarch Lives, Life of Solon (600BC)

I disagree with this statement, as it applies to USA today, in that if the weak and poor can read, they can walk into a public law library or go online at a public library, for "free", read the law for themselves, and represent themselves pro se in court, and do an excellent job for themselves. It's the stupid, gullible, ignernt and lazy who suffer the most in court today, regardless of wealth, regardless of whether they pay a lawyer big bucks.

This is why schools refuse to teach pro se law the the sheeple, since that would disrupt the slave plantation.

Traffic tickets, and especially parking tickets, are an excellent way for citizens to practice their pro se skills, "in the shallow end of the pool". Then, when a big legal problem arises, they can make intelligent decisions about their case.

Before TeeVee, folks watched REAL trials at the local courthouse. The Idiotbox censors Rules of Procedure from the sheeple, so when they try to play People's Court in Real Court, they get their butts kicked.

The purpose of the One-Eyed-Cyclops-Of-Death is to brainwash the sheeple that they must confess all their victimless-crimes to every cop they meet, then plead guilty to every non-crime - that it's actually unpatriotic to put up a legal defense using the Constitutions and The Law as the Founding Fathers intended. Suckers!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:26 PM

ZISKER

This analysis, of course, assumes that a modern capitalist system (or any modern system, really) is in place. How do we define freedom in modern terms? In America, and most of the world, there is an "Alliance" in that we can't pick up our toys, walk away and say we're not playing anymore. Even if you join a commune that community is subject to law, even if you become a drifter or a hermit, the laws are still able to control movement and living situations. In fact, these days removing yourself from the system seems to further deprive you of freedom as it hinders you from earning enough money to defend yourself legally - even if you devote weeks and months to preparing your case, the average individual is no match for a corporation's team of lawyers.

Take, for instance, the case of the college student who set up a free network for his college and enable students to use Napster on it. He was sued by the record industry for doing so and his lawyer told him that he was being sued wrongfully, and would eventually win, but did he have the funds to be in and out of court for the next fifteen years? No. So he had to settle and fork over the few tens of thousands he had saved for college to a billion-dollar industry.

Where I grew up a man was discovered living in an underground bunker in some patch of woods - he wasn't hurting anyone and was able to provide for himself, but they evicted him nonetheless. When a supermarket opened a quarter of a mile down the road from where I lived. The chain supermarket could afford to lobby for the township to widen the road - so emminent domain was used to take a piece of our property for commercial purposes. Is there freedom for the individual or the corporation in this country? Call me bias, but I think freedom applies only when there can be financial gains. We're a capitalist society.

But it's not just the government's fault that this happens, the citizens are complicit accomplises. In exchange for our freedoms, we receive comfort and commodities. Look at the 'choices' that have been listed in this thread alone: brand names. We don't always consider non-commodity choices, do we even concieve of them in our consumer society?

So far as the nature of government is concerned, doesn't it inherently limit our freedom? If the law restricted no one, the world might be a terrifying place depending on your general outlook on human nature. But we do have laws and therefore civilization. Civilization requires regulation to function - only now, we're starting to run out of pressure valves. There's no west to run to anymore, no place where a person can head for the hills, so to speak, when they're unhappy with the way things are (which is why we need to colonize other planets, but that's another rant for another day

). Law and commerce - commerce more so than law (it amazes me that while the regulations concerning credit card collection agencies are regulated on a national basis, laws for capital crimes are not) - bind us within society. If you find yourself in debt, you are trapped in this country no matter where you go, and the situation is only getting stickier.

. . .wow. Sorry, I don't know where that came from. To sum it up: Freedom (in the modern sense) is the ability to throw your toys down, say "I'm not playing anymore" and walk away. And we don't have that. I'll shut up now

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Free software,free society.

Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 4:31 PM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed lamb disputing the majority decision.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

LOL

Did you think of that or is it a well known saying? love it

I believe the attribution is Benjamin Franklin.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:31 PM

HAYWARD79

"The Constitution legalized slavery, involuntary servitude for prisoners, and voluntary servitude for everybody else via its Contract Clause. Today, contracts are used to perpetually enslave the sheeple, both private and governMENTAL."

The Constitution, by the amendment process of Article V, also allowed for the situation is which slavery could become illegal, as exemplified by the 13th-15th Amendment. It's interesting and telling that you don't mention this. You also might want to review some of the more modern jurisprudence concerning the Contracts Clause, because your current conception of that clause is...how do I put this...outdated. Additionally, almost all legal theorists universally hold to the idea that the Contracts Clause actually acts as a significant impediment to governmental power.

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I'm an attorney, recently graduated from law school who specializes in constitutional law, so when I read something like your post, I am obliged to jump on it, lest other people accept what you're saying at face value.

As a matter of advice, if you really want people to take you seriously, you really should dispense with the "sheeple" rhetoric. Whenever you have to resort to this kind of language, you paint yourself as more than a bit of an elitist.

Additionally, as someone who has actually spent time living abroad and studying comparative legal systems (including China), it's very odd to hear you so adamantly refer to the US as a police State. Relative to what, exactly? Relative to your idealized conception of a completely free society without restrictions? Such a comparison holds aboslutely no substance. Here's a suggestion for some reading: Thomas Hobbes's "Leviathan" and just about anything by John Locke.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:48 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by Hayward79:
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I'm an attorney, recently graduated from law school who specializes in constitutional law, so when I read something like your post, I am obliged to jump on it, lest other people accept what you're saying at face value.

Anybody that accepts what PirateNews says at face value must be fairly demented to start off with.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by... oh you know already:

This is why schools refuse to teach pro se law the the sheeple, since that would disrupt the slave plantation.

I really agree. More extreme than I would have put it, but I think the state education is geared towards producing obedient sheep, or as Joss put it "Mindless Automatons."

Quote:
The purpose of the One-Eyed-Cyclops-Of-Death is to brainwash the sheeple that they must confess all their victimless-crimes to every cop they meet, then plead guilty to every non-crime - that it's actually unpatriotic to put up a legal defense using the Constitutions and The Law as the Founding Fathers intended.

An interesting point. The Cyclops sometimes dishes out firefly. But i don't actually own a cyclops. I was spared. They didn't have it in town when I was a kid. I remember when the guy came in, selling it. Some folks bought it, others didn't. We didn't. Folks that did now live in trailers. I guess my gut is to say PN is basically right here. I think that the idiot box does a lot more training on how you should respect and worship cops because they secure your freedom from the vicious, and virtually non-existant, criminals. I guess some of you live in cities and maybe have crime. He we still have harassment. Lately we have drug traffickers, which I can't stand, of course, but the cops do nothing about it. Nothing at all. Cocaine dealer on the hill, they can't be bothered. Someone going 55 in a 35, haul their ass away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:29 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Originally posted by Jonus:
One day it's gonna be like the Independents vs. Alliance. I can't wait.

Attack me, not my opinion.

in away its already like that now!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:33 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Free software,free society.

Free as in freedom, not beer.

Freedom isn't free . Freedom cost a buck O five!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 3:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Didn't have much time for a thought-out answer before, but....

Some of what we're doing is a redux of Rousseau's The Social Contract: Man is born into a state of freedom but gives up some of those freedoms in order to obtain the benefits of living in society. If you want to drive, you must stop at stop signs and drive on the correct side of the road lest you scare (at the least) and kill (at the worst) your fellow humans. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and so forth and so on. Fair enough.

The limitations only get worse as population densities increase and resources diminish: You shouldn't spit gum on the common sidewalk or create a ruckus when others are trying to sleep or wear really really strong perfume in a elevator. My logging affects your water quality. If you really want to do away with these limitations then you have think about drastic population reduction so that space can be reserved for people who want to live at a primitive level by themselves.

But there are other- many other- limitations that only benefit the powerful and are meant to promote and maintain a state of inequality. Property laws benefit those with the most property. Intellectual property laws benefit those with the most money. Capitalism benefits the capitalist. Corporations enjoy a legal status that no other organizations or individuals can attain.

We're gulled into thinking that we can never change this, that this all results from "human nature" or that it follows some sort of natural Darwinian law or that it provides the most good for the most people... but that the fundamental structure of our society- one which we have created by our own laws- is somehow out of our hands. And then we're distracted with meaningless choices - as Rue said, Coke or Pepsi- that give us the illusion of freedom while reducing us to powerlessness.

If nothing else, when it is three ayem and it's only you and the dark ceiling above your head, if you can't imagine dethroning the powerful then you're not free. And you're a coward.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zisker:
To sum it up: Freedom (in the modern sense) is the ability to throw your toys down, say "I'm not playing anymore" and walk away. And we don't have that.

Wow Zisker, that was worth the price of admission alone.
Thanks.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 6:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

If nothing else, when it is three ayem and it's only you and the dark ceiling above your head, if you can't imagine dethroning the powerful then you're not free. And you're a coward.

*Chrisisall stands and applauds*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 6:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
If nothing else, when it is three ayem and it's only you and the dark ceiling above your head, if you can't imagine dethroning the powerful then you're not free. And you're a coward.

Worth repeating.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 9:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If nothing else, when it is three ayem and it's only you and the dark ceiling above your head, if you can't imagine dethroning the powerful then you're not free. And you're a coward.

I don't think of them at all. I don't want to dethrone the powerful, I want nothing to do with them and would prefer it if they recipricate. I saw an interesting interview with Newt Gingrich where he said that Americans don't have a "Social Contract" like may exist in the rest of the world. I forgot what he called it but the crux was that all that was promised for abiding by the rules was equal opertunity. Reminds me of a DS9 episode about the Ferengi, basically Ferengi employers abuse Ferengi employees so the question was raised why dont they object to being exploited and change the system? The answer? Because every downtrodden Ferengi dreams of the day he'll be the boss and in a position to mistreat others for his own profit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You want nothing to do with them but they are doing what they want to you.

They determine your choices, your laws, your knowledge and even your beliefs. They run the economy, the government, the schools, the churches.

You get to decide Pepsi or Coke and therefore think you are free.

My impression is that you live in the UK. Is that true?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

By "dethroning" I didn't mean "becoming and replacing" I meant "eliminating the position from existance" My statement was badly worded.

Still, it led me realize some things about certain people on the board. They live comfortably with the thought of a very few people having immense power over their lives by various psychological dodges.

Some of them assume that those in power (the President and his Band of Merrie Men, the collective corpraote Boards or whomever) are actually great men- or at least okay men-who lie awake at night and spend at least PART of their time thinking about us in a kindly, concerned way. Some deny that they really are powerless. In their mind, they've got just as much clout as Bill Gates and they think that going toe-to-toe with {insert international corporation here} is a reasonable proposition. In their mind, they are the "winners" in the system. Others think that if they ignore the powerful, the powerful will ignore them. Or that they can somehow create their own "society" w/in the larger society. Or that there is no system at all. Others engage in the illusion of freedom through the endless choices of consumerism, or gun ownership, or even physical fitness.

The concept of owning your society and being able to improve it has gone phfffft On the one hand we're told we're free, but on the other hand we're told that we're at the mercy of unstoppable forces: globalism, competition, "human nature", corruption ... without realizing that we're the ones who keep this whole paradigm going.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I saw an interesting interview with Newt Gingrich where he said that Americans don't have a "Social Contract" like may exist in the rest of the world. I forgot what he called it but the crux was that all that was promised for abiding by the rules was equal opertunity

"The crux was that all that was promised for abiding by the rules was equal opertunity

This sounds suspiciously like a social contract.

And this is one of the biggest fibs- because we DO have a social contract, we just don't acknowledge it. Because if we did, we might examine it, and if we did that, we might actually change it.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Others engage in the illusion of freedom through the endless choices of consumerism, or gun ownership, or even physical fitness.

SignyM, you hit it spot-on.
Everyone has their own recipe for sublimation, denial, or sheer perceptual transmutation.
Some, I suspect, even use the abusee mentality of "It's what we deserve".

It all makes sense 'till something happens, and you lose that four bedroom house and BMW.

It's all about the Benjemins Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 10:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

For those in denial, this non-freedom is a non-issue.

It only becomes real when something happens to THEM.

These are the same people who claim that all is right with the US but choose not to go downtown after dark.

You can't reason with them, since they block out massive chunks of reality. They prefer to keep their vision tightly focused on the little things they want to see.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
They prefer to keep their vision tightly focused on the little things they want to see.

We need to give out those special sunglasses from "They Live", what?

Delerious Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:29 AM

The problem with this entire notion is defining the notion of "free." I would argue that men in a society are never "free" that the need to conform to group social and religious norms actually involve reliquishing some freedom. Further, if you are born into a society you never even get the choice of accepting it's norms, you are indoctrinated with them as a matter of course. Your only opertunity to redress that is to leave.

So when were you or your ancestors ever "free?" 1776? Not if you were black and even if you were white you in most states you didnt get to vote unless you owned property. During a monarchy? Not really, then a large number of the people that lorded over you did so purely based on their ancestry? Feudal times as a chattel made to work someone else's land? Guess not.

You may be right that democracy is a choice between two wolves but it is a choice, this isnt the wolf that claims to rule because God says so. If the other wolk is less hungry you at least get to choose him. It is what it is. If you want to be free, learn to fix diesel and two stroke engines and go live on a polynesian island, the fact that you will probably be the only person for 300 miles of ocean is about the best you can do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
[
My impression is that you live in the UK. Is that true?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

I'm English but I live in Texas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 11:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The problem with this entire notion is defining the notion of "free."

Of course we are never "free". We're constrained by our need for air, water, food, and shelter. We're constrained by our inability to fly, breathe water, or burrow. If we live in society we conform to its rules. But freedom doesn't necessarily mean rebelling aginst all constraints. Choosing a total opposite in some way binds you to the thing you're opposing. Freedom may be the ability to CHOOSE the constraints that we live under, as opposed to having them placed on us.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 12:01 PM

Define constraints, define others?

PN seems to have a problem with the idea that you should ban people from driving for DUI. I would prefer it if drunk drivers were not on the roads I drive on or near the people I love. If I -- and by I I mean myself and society--- decide to ban drunk drivers we have by definition curtailed the freedom of PN to have a few beers and drive home.

That's really the issue here. At a big or small level we make rules so that we can live together without killing each other. In most places the majority decides those rules, even if that means 1000 soccer moms fraid little Jimmy will be run down outvote PN in his wish to have a few beers and then drive. By definition when we make rules the folks that would break them won't like them, the people that wont will not see it as a curtailing of their freedom. I don't drink and drive, so laws that say I will be punished if I do have no effect on my freedom. That doesn't make me subservient that just means that for me it is not an issue.

When something comes along that outlaws something I might want to do then yes I get upset so in a way you are right to suggest that people dont worry about this stuff until it effects them but consider if you were consistant and opposed any law that restricted anyone from doing anything? Then you would have to back dealer's rights to sell drugs or pedophiles rights to chat up kids at school yards.

It is what it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 12:14 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"At a big or small level we make rules"

That is the democratic ideal. OTOH I think Americans live in a system $ 1 = 1 vote. The rich have power over the laws the rest have to live by.

The issue is not whether or not people have to live by 'rules'. It's whether or not they decide on them or get them imposed.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 12:55 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Feudal times as a chattel made to work someone else's land?

I hear that in Feudal times the amount of time the lower classes had to devote to working the lords land instead of their own was less than what we know pay in tax, if that makes any sense. Maybe they were better off...

There's also the fact that people could become Freemen...

Chris:
Is they live that film with the aliens that you can only tell they're aliens with the glasses?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 3:12 PM

Very few people had "their own land" all the land they farmed belonged to their lord and master, just that some they farmed for food for themselves and some as his "cut." In any case what he got for that kindness appart from a workforce was the ability to impress them into his service and therefore in theory order them to their deaths.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"At a big or small level we make rules"

That is the democratic ideal. OTOH I think Americans live in a system $ 1 = 1 vote. The rich have power over the laws the rest have to live by.

The issue is not whether or not people have to live by 'rules'. It's whether or not they decide on them or get them imposed.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

If I am born into a society even a democracy I inherit rules and laws that I myself didn't vote on. So every law passed before I reach voting age is "Imposed" on me. Even after I can vote the rules others pass are still "imposed." Several thousand soccer moms fearfull for lil Jimmy pass vehicle ordinances that curtail PN's rights to drink and drive. HE certainly didnt vote for those rules and yet he is still expected to obey them. That is the nature of society that to be "in the tribe" and able to access it's benefits and protection you have to abide by rules you don't agree with.

As to if your political society is corrupt, yes it is, but that's not a fault of democratic society in general or your society in particular. If it REALLY troubled you that much you'd be out there doing something about it and not whining on an internet forum.

For the record I live in the US, I pay the same taxes you do and I get no vote at all as to how my money is spent. You have a vote, use it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Chris:
Is they live that film with the aliens that you can only tell they're aliens with the glasses?

Yep. Go here:
http://www.dvd.reviewer.co.uk/reviews/review.asp?Index=2517&User=6204

My favourite conspiracy flick!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 4:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If I am born into a society even a democracy I inherit rules and laws that I myself didn't vote on. So every law passed before I reach voting age is "Imposed" on me. Even after I can vote the rules others pass are still "imposed." Several thousand soccer moms fearfull for lil Jimmy pass vehicle ordinances that curtail PN's rights to drink and drive. HE certainly didnt vote for those rules and yet he is still expected to obey them. That is the nature of society that to be "in the tribe" and able to access it's benefits and protection you have to abide by rules you don't agree with.

I guess my concept is not how laws (or rules of society, or economic relations, or memes, or paradigms, or whatever you want to call it) come into being but how easily they can be changed.

There is resistance to change at all levels, but the most significant resistance comes from two forces: those who benefit the most from "the way things are" and can consciously support and abet them and (b) those who remain prisoners of assumptions so fundamental they don't even know they hold those assumptions no matter how detrimental those assumptions might be.

I'll give you a quick example from "Man Against Myth". The rationale for social order changed from religion to the "natural world" some time during the French Enlightenment. Looking to nature as the paradigm for the way things "should" be opened the world to social Darwinism, which was a terrible misapplication of science- but a hand-in-glove fit with the emerging capitalist class. You could no longer use moral or religious arguments against capitalism because you would simply be fighting "human nature", "the way things are" etc.... even though the previous several centuries of power structures had been built SPECIFICALLY on that idea.

All of the assumptions about 'human nature' are that- assumptions. Not only that, using closeness to 'human nature' or even 'nature' as the basis for society is itself an assumption. Those kinds of deep-seated assumptions are the hardest to find.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 5:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
If it REALLY troubled you that much you'd be out there doing something about it and not whining on an internet forum.

Uhm, why do you think this is all I do?

Quote:
You have a vote, use it.

I do.

And really, do you want to be an a**hole by presuming you know me?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 5:43 PM

Quote:
Freedom isn't free . Freedom cost a buck O five!!

Lol. I think this is the first thing Jenny's posted that I agree with.

Quote:
Man is born into a state of freedom but gives up some of those freedoms in order to obtain the benefits of living in society.

Maybe once this was true, but now he gives them up at gunpoint to people who want his money. Because of this, in the case of the feds, the govt. offers nothing in return. Not even 'less than it should,' but 'nothing,' or perhaps much better put as 'less than nothing.' When you consider that you might be whisked away to a foreign land to fight in a war, or to be tortured in guantanamo, have your property taken by a force much greater than any band of brigands could ever muster, this is a govt. which truly is delivering serious negative conseqeunces, and about the only thing it gives out for free is drug money for addicts to generate chaos they could never generate on their own, and oh, yeah social security, otherwise known as: 'One third (1/3) of your own money back after a forty (40) year wait with no (0%) interest. (The truth is privatization of soc. sec. is such a good idea that abandoning soc. sec. at this point would be an improvement, IMHO.)

Anyway, I could go on and on, but my point is: If govt. were a product, no one would ever buy it. It would have to become much much better to even generate a modest amount of consumer interest.

Perhaps society only works on a graduated scale. If there were total chaos in the country, and as you approach a city things get more and more civilized, then everyone could choose their own level of civilization vs. freedom. Societies like the US would crumble if they didn't reform drastically, but a new form of competition would open up. The laws of NY would compete with the laws of Chicago for customers.

I actually wrote this at 9 AM but we've had no power all day. It was a pleasant reminder of life without power. We had no power our first two years up here. It was okay. I would miss the internet, but it strikes me, as a society, we rely too heavily on electricity. Most 'modern conveniences' are irrelevant to quality of life. I guess I would take chaos over the current state, I think there needs to be more competition of govt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 5:53 PM

I thought I was saying something new, but I think Zisker said it, and Signy too, and this

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:

You want nothing to do with them but they are doing what they want to you.

They determine your choices, your laws, your knowledge and even your beliefs. They run the economy, the government, the schools, the churches.

You get to decide Pepsi or Coke and therefore think you are free.

... is very true as well.

Without getting personal, and leading into a flame war I have no interest in, two things strike me:

1. Many of us are off in an extreme position where we feel that authority, at the very least in its present state, is something we could do without, and perhaps lacks a reason for being. Some of us are on the other end, and what does that make us?

2. The above split is completely unconnected to the left-right political continuum. I think of people in both positions at the extremes of both ends of the political spectrum, as in all four corners.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 5:57 PM

There were no shortage of free blacks in 1776. Esp. here in NY. Yeah, there were also slaves, not so many of those here. I don't want to get into it, just posting the correction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 17, 2006 5:58 PM