Freedom through Ideas by Magonsdaughter

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Freedom through Ideas

POSTED BY: MAGONSDAUGHTER
UPDATED: Friday, August 3, 2012 19:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1986
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, August 2, 2012 12:30 PM

I want to move the debate away from gun laws, because it has gone about as far as it can go possibly, to discuss the concept of whether freedom is aquired through the population being armed and ready to overthrown tyranny through violent revolution, or whether freedom is acquired through the spreading, debating and eventual legislating of ideas. Clearly there are cases for both sides, but which do YOU think is most important.

I think ideas.

Here is a modern historical timeline of democratic developments

Pre-Eighteenth century milestones

Rise of democratic parliaments in England and Scotland: Magna Carta (1215) limiting the authority of powerholders, First elected parliament (1265), The Levellers political movement, English Civil War (1642–1651), Habeas Corpus Act (1679) and English Bill of Rights . See also: other documents listed at the Constitution of the United Kingdom, History of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
The idea of the political party with factions took form in Britain around the time of the English Civil Wars of the 1640s and 1650s. Soldiers from the Parliamentarian New Model Army and a faction of Levellers freely debated rights to political representation during the Putney Debates of 1647. The Levellers published a newspaper (The Moderate) and pioneered political petitions, pamphleteering and party colours. Later, the pre-war Royalist (then Cavalier) and opposing Parliamentarian groupings became the Tory party and the Whigs in the Parliament.
Simon de Montfort in 1265 introduced the idea that powerholders are responsible to an electorate — (although only landowners were allowed to vote in the 1265 English election)
Renaissance humanism was a cultural movement in Europe beginning in central Italy (particularly Florence) in the last decades of the 14th century. It revived and refined the study of language (First Latin, and then the Greek language by mid-century), science, philosophy, art and poetry of classical antiquity. The "revival" was based on interpretations of Roman and Greek texts. Their emphasis on art and the senses marked a great change from the medieval values of humility, introspection, and passivity.

The humanist philosophers looked for secular principles on which society could be organized, as opposed to the concentration of political power in the hands of the Church. Prior to the Renaissance, religion had been the dominant force in politics for a thousand years.

Humanists looked at ancient Greece and found the concept of democracy. In some cases they began to implement it (to a limited extent) in practice.

The election of Augustus II at Wola, outside Warsaw, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in 1697. Painted by Bernardo Bellotto

Norman Davies notes that Golden Liberty, the Nobles' Democracy (Rzeczpospolita Szlachecka) arose in the Kingdom of Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This foreshadowed a democracy of about ten percent of the population of the Commonwealth, consisting of the nobility, who were an electorate for the office of the King.[79] They observed Nihil novi of 1505, Pacta conventa and King Henry's Articles (1573). See also: Szlachta history and political privileges, Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Organisation and politics of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.[80]
The Mayflower Compact, signed in 1620, an agreement between the Pilgrims, on forming a government between themselves, based on majority rule.
William Penn wrote his Frame of Government of Pennsylvania in 1682. The document gave the colony a representative legislature and granted liberal freedoms to the colony's citizens.

Eighteenth and nineteenth century milestones
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen approved by the National Assembly of France, 26 August 1789.

1755: The Corsican Republic led by Pasquale Paoli with the Corsican Constitution
Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 (based on the English Bill of Rights)
United States Constitution ratified in 1788 (although it was left to the individual states to decide how delegates to Congress were selected). and the United States Bill of Rights ratified in 1791. The framers of the Constitution did not plan on the development of a democracy for the new republic.iii[›]
1780s: development of social movements identifying themselves with the term 'democracy': Political clashes between 'aristocrats' and 'democrats' in Benelux countries changed the semi-negative meaning of the word 'democracy' in Europe, which was until then regarded as synonymous with anarchy, into a much more positive opposite of 'aristocracy'.
From late 1770s: new Constitutions and Bills explicitly describing and limiting the authority of powerholders, many based on the English Bill of Rights (1689). Historian Norman Davies calls the Polish Constitution of 3 May 1791 "the first constitution of its kind in Europe".[81]
1791: The Haitian Revolution a successful slave revolution, established a free republic.
1789–1799: the French Revolution
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen adopted on 26 August 1789 which declared that "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights" and proclaimed the universal character of human rights.
Universal male suffrage established for the election of the National Convention in September 1792, but revoked by the Directory in 1795.
Slavery abolished in the French colonies by the National Convention on 4 February 1794, with Black people made equal to White people ("All men, without distinction of color, residing in the colonies are French citizens and will enjoy all the rights assured by the Constitution").[82] Slavery was re-established by Napoleon in 1802.
1790s First Party System in U.S. involves invention of locally-rooted political parties in the United States; networks of party newspapers; new canvassing techniques; use of caucus to select candidates; fixed party names; party loyalty; party platform (Jefferson 1799); peaceful transition between parties (1800)
Early 19th century: in Europe rise of political parties competing for votes.

The establishment of universal male suffrage in France in 1848 was an important milestone in the history of democracy.

Extension of political rights to various social classes: elimination of wealth, property, sex, race and similar requirements for voting (See also universal suffrage).
1807: The U.K. Slave Trade Act banned the trade in the British Empire.
1831: The passing of the Reform Act in the UK which gave representation to previously under represented urban areas and extended the franchise to a wider population.
1833: The U.K. passed the Slavery Abolition Act and used the Royal Navy to combat foreign slave traders.
1848: Universal male suffrage was definitely established in France in March of that year, in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848.[83]
1848: Following the French, the Revolutions of 1848, although in many instances forcefully put down, did result in democratic constitutions in some other European countries among them Denmark and Netherlands.
1850s: introduction of the secret ballot in Australia; 1872 in UK; 1892 in USA
1853: Black Africans given the vote for the first time in Southern Africa, in the British-administered Cape Province.
1870: USA – 15th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibits voting rights discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.
1879 and 1880: William Ewart Gladstone's UK Midlothian campaign ushered in the modern political campaign.
1893: New Zealand is the first nation to introduce universal suffrage by awarding the vote to women (universal male suffrage had been in place since 1879).

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

Thursday, August 2, 2012 12:52 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Obviously ideas, if you're talking about social progress. Mankind seems to MOSTLY evolve over time to become more inclusive and more tolerant...at least until something dramatic happens, like a 9/11 or a war, in which case the ability to dehumanize seems to jump to the fore and survive for a long time.

In other words, violence BEGETS lack of freedom, because revolutions, from what I've seen, turn societies backwards for a time before they can slowly move forward again, and the process repeats. I think violence kind of requires dehumanization; if anyone actually thought about the life they were taking, it would require a total lack of conscience not to pause. In life-or-death situations, of course it's reflexive, but in war one has to choose to kill others, which I think requires dehumanization.

When societies are settled and away from war, people get to know one another as fellow human beings, and I think that increases the chance of more and more freedom being given to individuals by society.

There is no actual "freedom", if you want to talk literally. Everything has its limits, whether set by society or by government or by king or dictator. How much "freedom" one has is dependent upon those, so to me freedom doesn't mean just the knee-jerk concept, but how freely a society functions. JMHO.

From what I know of this place, there are others who will most aggressively disagree, but I will guess their concept of "freedom" is considerably different from mine.

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

Thursday, August 2, 2012 7:25 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well that one's bloody obvious - Ideas, of course.
Cause don't ya know... they're bulletproof.

While personal armament can be, and often is, a check against tyranny, the greater asset against it is the minds and will of people - but when people sell themselves to darkness, don the black shirts and jack boots of their own free will, often mere words or ideas are insufficient to oppose them - just ask the Native Americans about that one.

Still, in the end it is never weapons which create the social changes, it is ideas, it is people.
Problem with this is that american society has by way of their education-indoctrination system, the pharmaceutical industry, and abusive child-rearing practices, effectively slaughtered the visionaries who generally spark such social advancements, in order to maintain and promote a disastrous and inhumane status quo which benefits the few at the expense of the many - and history shows this is always a temporary state of affairs, and the more prolonged it is the more awful things get when it finally goes the other way.

How to put it, even - okay, we've all seen the debate over what mighta happened if someone had capped Hitler before his rise to power, but ponder this one instead ?
What if we had eliminated Ghandi, Mother Theresa, any of the visionaries who made POSITIVE changes to the world ?
Well, that is what our actions have effectively done, emotionally, psychologically, chemically or even physically brutalizing them to the point where they no longer had the ability or potential to BE visionaries, to MAKE those changes, silencing their voices, crushing their ideas...

And this, this awfulness around us today - that is the harvest of the bitter crop we've sown.
But the human spirit is a damn resilient thing, each one that slips through the cracks of a system designed to stifle and eliminate them, often turns round and widens the gap for others, dumps their own handful of sand in the gears of that machine, and sooner or later, provided it doesn't collapse under the weight of its own atrocities in the meantime, that will do for it - this is INEVITABLE, history shows as much.

I am just pushin for sooner rather than later cause the longer it goes on, the more catastrophic the fallout, is all.
And, well, not to sound especially vicious, but if you forgive and forget and let them start building that machine anew before the last one has collapsed, you just feed the cycle - which is *why* I am so passionate about the utter destruction of the people who knowingly participate.

-Frem

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

Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:04 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I've seen some silly ideas on pre=emptive strike notions around nazi germany, which never take into consideration that hitler was a product of his times and society and his immense popularity, not only in germany but elsewhere as well. In the beginning, a lot of people admired him for his strong stands on issues, and it is only as time went on and it became obvious that his personality and ego were disastrous in a ruler.

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

Friday, August 3, 2012 7:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Not just that, but the 1% loved the guy, still do, just behind closed doors...
It shows, too - look at the GOP!

Mind you we also supported Franco, Stalin, Pinochet, Papa Doc, the list goes on and on and on.
Anyone who thinks the american top echelons aren't EXTREMELY fascist-friendly hasn't been payin much attention, in particular the Bush family dynasty.

That they admire the motherfucker is the truest sign of what they really are.
I reserve my admiration for The White Rose Society - yes they failed, but at least they TRIED.
So it wasn't just one bastard, it was a nation which followed him to hell by choice.
http://www.naturalchild.org/alice_miller/adolf_hitler.html
And we've learned all but NOTHING from it, it seems.

-Frem

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

Friday, August 3, 2012 1:31 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Lots of people tried. It's not true to say there was no resistence in Germany, its just that they were quickly silenced and despatched.

Have you ever seen either of the films on the White Rose, Frem?

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

Friday, August 3, 2012 2:28 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
I reserve my admiration for The White Rose Society - yes they failed, but at least they TRIED.

Indeed. There is a reason I use a white rose as a personal symbol in some of my ventures.

I've not seen any films on them, Magons, but would be interested in doing so.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

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

Friday, August 3, 2012 2:36 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

They're German films. i did hear that Brad Pitt was trying to produce an american one, but don't know where that is at.

The White Rose is the one I have seen.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084897/

There is also
Sophie Scholl: The Final Days
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426578/

Which I have not seen.

Interesting segue to both this topic and German films, but anyone seen 'The Lives of Others'? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/

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

Friday, August 3, 2012 7:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Will see about gettin my hands on em, haven't seen em though.
I know the story though, and well - which is one reason for the amount of smoke and mirrors trickery I mostly used to indulge in, cause while while folks wish and pretend that speaking up for freedom should not be done from anonymity, the ugly reality of it is very, very different - I not only learn from my own mistake, but those of others.

V had it right, the IDEA, the CONCEPT, is more important than the person.
Which is why there will always be a Fremdfirma, always, even if not necessarily this one.

-Frem

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

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE