Are we free

[hipwr3]

Can a county, or any goup of people for that matter ,consider itself free if they alow themselfs to be manipulated into doing thigs that are imoral and against most peoples Ideas of what freedom realy is. I am starting to get the Idea that the only free entity in my county is the government because they appear to be free to Manipulate our population at will, Unchecked and unregulated. Their appear to be many things going on that most people diagree with yet say nothing or do nothing about. The statement that we are still the freest county in the world means nothing because the word freest does not mean free.

[The Atheist]

Can a county, or any goup of people for that matter ,consider itself free if they alow themselfs to be manipulated into doing thigs that are imoral and against most peoples Ideas of what freedom realy is. I am starting to get the Idea that the only free entity in my county is the government because they appear to be free to Manipulate our population at will, Unchecked and unregulated. Their appear to be many things going on that most people diagree with yet say nothing or do nothing about. The statement that we are still the freest county in the world means nothing because the word freest does not mean free.

Well, that's the choice we make thanks to democracy. (Places where totalitarian regimes exist don't have the choice, obviously!)

To have perfect freedom would be to have total anarchy. People would be free to rape, murder, whatever they desired. That type of lifestyle doesn't appeal to many, so we work on a system of carrying out the will of the many and have arranged our societies to work for the benefit of most. Governments in democratic countries are no more free than the average citizen, and in a Westminster-style parliament, far less free as they are Whipped to cast their votes in the right direction.

The only complete freedom we're allowed - in the more enlightened countries - is freedom of speech.

[Scheherazade]

Well, that's the choice we make thanks to democracy. (Places where totalitarian regimes exist don't have the choice, obviously!)

To have perfect freedom would be to have total anarchy. People would be free to rape, murder, whatever they desired. That type of lifestyle doesn't appeal to many, so we work on a system of carrying out the will of the many and have arranged our societies to work for the benefit of most. Governments in democratic countries are no more free than the average citizen, and in a Westminster-style parliament, far less free as they are Whipped to cast their votes in the right direction.

The only complete freedom we're allowed - in the more enlightened countries - is freedom of speech. Don't you think 'to have perfect freedom of speech' might have its drawbacks as well? People wouldn't abuse this freedom as well like in your examples of 'rape, murder, whatever they desired'?

PS: Isn't it sad that we expect the worst if we were left on our own?

[amanda_isabel]

i think freedom of speech is perfect. i mean, we're free to berate people but never to really exercise physical violence. to whatever extent derogatory speech gets, i don't think it can be punished for that in itself. maybe condemnation for psychological abuse through words but that's another thing altogether.

[hipwr3]

I read a book called Atlas Shrugged by Ayne Rand, Objectivism is her thing. If we live only to serve the many wont the Individual be sacrificed, ultimately takeing down the many because the many is made up of individuals. To create a culture that serves the mob is not what the USA was founded for, I think the founding fathers had it rite for the most part so we may want to re visit that idea.

[King of Frogs]

The point of a collective society at its root is not "serving the mob" as you put it but helping and careing for one another in society by shareing it's resources, thus creating a stronger society giving greater opportunities to individuals, but I really think we are beginning to move away from the topic of the actual book with all these kinds of threads, maybe we could give them a rest guys? Or at least link back to the novel?

[The Atheist]

Don't you think 'to have perfect freedom of speech' might have its drawbacks as well? People wouldn't abuse this freedom as well like in your examples of 'rape, murder, whatever they desired'?

PS: Isn't it sad that we expect the worst if we were left on our own?

Not just expecting the worst, knowing that the worst would happen. Only civilisation keeps humans civilised - even to the degree we are now.

[Gunvor]

Well, that's the choice we make thanks to democracy. (Places where totalitarian regimes exist don't have the choice, obviously!)

To have perfect freedom would be to have total anarchy. People would be free to rape, murder, whatever they desired.

If we are to have a world of complete freedom, this would probably be someone's ideals, yes. But wouldn't this at the same time be restricting the freedom of other human beeings? And then the ideal world of complete freedom wouldn't exist after all.
It all adds up to the fact that we support the idea of freedom, as long as other people's freedom don't have any negative influence on ourselves.

[The Atheist]

If we are to have a world of complete freedom, this would probably be someone's ideals, yes. But wouldn't this at the same time be restricting the freedom of other human beeings? And then the ideal world of complete freedom wouldn't exist after all.
It all adds up to the fact that we support the idea of freedom, as long as other people's freedom don't have any negative influence on ourselves.

I don't think freedom is a goal anywhere, it's basically the anathema to the point of having a government - governments restrict "freedom" to protect the majority. I suspect you might be conflating freedom and freedom of speech, which are two entirely different things.

[bazarov]

To have perfect freedom would be to have total anarchy. People would be free to rape, murder, whatever they desired.


That's way we have government; to keep lupus in everyone of us in eternal peace.



It all adds up to the fact that we support the idea of freedom, as long as other people's freedom don't have any negative influence on ourselves.

Well said!

Only freedom of speech is allowed; you can't hurt anybody too much( no matter of theories that pencils and words are sharper than knifes) and when you're right, they just ignore you...

[The Atheist]

That's way we have government; to keep lupus in everyone of us in eternal peace.


Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn put it beautifully:


If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?