Freedom v Order

[Alejandro C]

The basic struggle of most political minds is the struggle between freedom and order. if the government gives people freedom it is taking away order and vice versa.

i am surprised that many people on this forum call themselves freedomists or other names implying they support the comlete freedom of themselves to do whatever they want when ever they want.

it seems to me that communism directly conflicts that idea by severely limiting economic freedoms.

Isn't being completely free to do whatever you want hyper-capitalism?

I'm not saying that i believe governments should be authoritarian. i believe that tight economic controls actually widen the freedom of the population by giving everyone the same opportunity and base for living.

I also believe on limits of free speech and media controls. I think these should be regulated similarly to the way communism regulates the economy. regulated to make things more equal. for example eliminating or merging the major media companies and allowing new news stations to broadcast usuing government money. or destroying the two political parties to allow new parties to emerge. these things clearly violate the US first amendment but i am in favor of that.

however, i live in the US and believe that since my goverment is directly against me i should have no responsability to obey its laws or help it.


in essence i believe that sacrificing freedom for order will bring a new kind of freedom to the people.

[Beccie]

Freedom and order are not necessarily at conflict. Consider anarchism, a social philosophy that advocates a society without government in which people have the freedom to take control over their own lives. Anarchy is not the terror, chaos and destruction that it is often depicted to be, it can actually be quite ordered as Proudhon once said Anarchy is order

I disagree with the notion that a person can be completely free in capitalist society. The social and economic inequality that exists in society and the increasing disparity between the rich and poor is a result of a highly competitive global capitalist system. How can people be "free" a society that legitimises division? I agree with Michael Bakunin when he said that Man (sic) is truly free only among equally free men. This is impossible to achieve in a Capitalist system.

[pedro san pedro]

i cant see myself having the "freedom" to get ahead, or even live "normally" within a capitalsit without impinging upon the freedom of others -be it the people i would employ, or the clothes i wear.
not being forced to do undermine others freedom would be an important part of my own

i nkow this doesnt sound very eligant -tried to avoid using the word freedom more then 3 times a sentence, but, well, you get the idea.
dont you?

[RyeN]

C. Your ony free in a capitolist state if you are the oppressor. In order for you to have those freedoms it also means that the freedoms of the majority are taken away so you can have your freedom. Capitolism is greedy and selfish, not at all the qualities I would want in a system where the place we live is so fragile and delicate. When humans and the earth are being raped by greedy bougeois pigs, I dont want in.

A communist order would actualy grant people more freedoms, not only in the things we are able to do, but also the things that could get acomplished. Order would bring freedom of information, instead of laws that prohibit the use of technologie. Order would allow for equal growth opportunities in all areas, providing a larger number of educated members of societey, instead of the ritch being educated and the poor forced to stay working class. Order would bring the freedom to think however you wanted to let your mind grow, instead of being brainwashed and forced to think a certain way.

The list could on but the point is that capitolism oppresses more freedoms that its worth.

[Alejandro C]

i agree that communism would create more freedoms. this topic was designed as a question to many who believe in their absolute freedom. the question was how can you say things like prostitution should be legal and abortion should be legal because people have the right to do whatever they want with themselves whenever they want. i was wondering why they felt complete social freedom was necesary but economic freedom (i know maybe not the best phrasing) must be limited.

basically i don't understand libertarianism, those of you who are explain it to me. why do your principles of social liberation not carry over to economic captalism.


btw good post beccie

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Alejandro [email protected] 27 2003, 10:52 AM
i was wondering why they felt complete social freedom was necesary but economic freedom (i know maybe not the best phrasing) must be limited.

basically i don't understand libertarianism, those of you who are explain it to me. why do your principles of social liberation not carry over to economic captalism.
What is considered "economic freedom" is not equal. Bill Gate's freedom to profit is my freedom to be overcharged for computer software. One man's (or woman, usually a man) freedom is another's slavery.

The flaw in "libertarianism" is that the resistance to tyrannical forces does not extend to the tyrants of capitalism. The freedom for the ruling class is acknowledged, but the lack of freedom for the wage slaves is ignored.

[Pete]

Your assumption that governments give freedom is incorrect. Governments take away the freedoms of life that we have just by breathing (breathe is poetry is thought is knowledge is power is freedom ^_^). It is through speechact that we allow them to do this, and since they are able to disguise and sugar coat their infringements on what we deserve as organisms, it is partially our fault that we are not free.

Socialization is another chain, freedom and order are the same. We are living in a disordered hell of straightlines and right angles that do not natuarlly exist, causing chaos on the rest of the world so we can live in chains willingly.

"You are still fucking peasants as far as I can see"
-John Lennon.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 11:52 AM
Your assumption that governments give freedom is incorrect. Governments take away the freedoms of life [...]
I favor the Jeffersonian theory about government, going into the Declaration of Independence. All men (and women) are created equal, and we are all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government rules because we the people consent to it, it serves our needs. If the government ceases to be useful, or becomes tyrannical, we overthrow it. We owe it nothing. Government is to serve us, if we need a government at all (the anarchist in me compels me to add that).

Looking at the Marxist view, more precisely at the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, then we see the idea of a workers' state. This is a security mechanism, devoted not so much to "giving" freedoms but rather in suppressing anyone who will take the freedoms we are entitled to.

[Alejandro C]

MIN-ok let me clear up my rhetoric. what i meant instead of economic freedom was economic unregulation.
also maybe i misused libertarianism- i thought it meant socially liberal but economically conservative. what's the word for that?

crazy pete- you say governments can only take away freedoms. i'm assuming you're an anarchist. if not, wouldn't you agree that communism requires a very strong government involvement in order to 'free' the people?
'governments only take away freedom'? what i meant instead of governments give freedom was that governments order or regulate freedom. i believe government involvement can bring about liberties because people's freedom is primarily taken away by other members of a society, not the government (unless we're talking about totalitarianism).

[Beccie]

communism requires a very strong government involvement in order to 'free' the people

As far as I understand the government (dictatorship of the proletariat) is a necessary stage between the transition to communism from capitalism. It is not actually communism!! Once the government has fulfilled all the real duties of the state it is no longer needed and therefore government and state "wither away". Thus communism requires no government at all, only a temporary dictatorship in order to free the people.

[Alejandro C]

ok, cross out communism and put in socialism. jesus, i've really got to start picking out my words more carefully.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Alejandro,

You have started a great thread here. Realize that you are using the mainstream words for the things you are talking about. This is fine to an extent, in that we all know what you are talking about. My criticism is that some of these common terms are unworthy of their names.


Originally posted by Alejandro C+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alejandro C)maybe i misused libertarianism- i thought it meant socially liberal but economically conservative. what&#39;s the word for that?[/b]

The group you are thinking of indeed call themselves "libertarians." I put quotation marks around their name because I feel that their ideology does not protect liberty to the extent it should. "Libertarians", at least in the United States, are more accurately softcore anarcho-capitalists. They are fairly left-wing on social questions, but are often harder to the right than the Republican Party on economic questions. I do not like to grant "libertarian" to adamant pro-capitalists because I am a social libertarian myself. I would dare say that I am a more complete libertarian because I also oppose economic oppression.


Alejandro C
what i meant instead of economic freedom was economic unregulation

Right, I understood that. The problem is that many people confuse these two as interchangeable. This is a distorted view, privileging the ruling class. As I mentioned in an earlier post, capitalism gives Bill Gates the freedom to abuse his employees and his consumers. We the people are only free to be used and abused by him, unless we would rather live in the Stone Age without computers. Some kind of freedom for workers and consumers, no?

[Bradyman]

About the libertarians. I am definetly not one of them, but I do know many who are. They believe in the idea of complete "liberty" both socialy and economically. They believe that they should not be restrained by any sort of authoritarian force on social issues as well as economic issues. They want reduced regulation on business, because they believe the regulation is restricting their freedom of enterprise. I, though, believe that by deregulating businesses, they are inclined to exploit many workers, thus limiting the freedoms of others.

I strictly believe that in a communist state, there is a greated sense of freedom. Many believe that one should have as much freedom so long as they don&#39;t take away the freedom of others. Under capitalism, the capitalist class takes away the freedom of the labors through means of exploitations such as low wages and other such acts. Thus, in order to ensure true liberty, the people should control the economy so that no one amasses any more power than another.

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 07:40 PM
dictatorship could be a little freedom with a cool ruler
if you were on hitler&#39;s good side it would be cool
a fascist dictatorship "cool"?
you are sick.

[BuyOurEverything]

OK, I believe socialism creates more freedom by restricting people&#39;s ability to opress one another. I believe in freedom but only if it doesn&#39;t infringe on other people freedom. One could argue that in order to be truly free, you would have to be allowed to kill whomever you wanted because that is one way to express yourself but we can only imagine a society like that. Also, I think capitalism&#39;s version of &#39;freedom&#39; is pretty fucked up. If you can define yourself by what colour cell phone cover you have or what brand of sandwhich meat you eat, that is pretty sad. People should define themselves by their personality and ideas not by pre-fabricated consumer goods.

[Alejandro C]

BOE- on other topics you and others (truthaddict, johnthemarxist, senorache) have repeatedly espoused an idea currently embraced by many in my country that government should have little or no restrictions on the life of its citizens. this was brought up in abortion, prostitution, and marijuana topics with phrases like &#39;its her body, her choice&#39; &#39;who are we to tell people if they can have sex for money&#39; &#39;the government has no place regulating a plant&#39;. this leads me to believe that you lean toward the left side of the scale, giving people more freedom and taking away the governments power to regulate their daily activities. this is social leftism.
the basic trend is government staying out of people&#39;s lives, which gives them a certain &#39;freedom&#39;

you and those same 3 also argue for socialsim/communism, which is a rigid governmental control of the economy. this is economic conservatism(sorry, sorry, i know its not the right word but dont argue with me over the words, debate with the ideas). i was interested in why you think the government should stay out of all social matters but get heavily invovled in economic matters.

please excuse me if i generalized you into a group or anyone else, i tried to be accurate.

[RBG Soldier]

OK, I believe socialism creates more freedom by restricting people&#39;s ability to opress one another.If you can define yourself by what colour cell phone cover you have or what brand of sandwhich meat you eat, that is pretty sad. People should define themselves by their personality and ideas not by pre-fabricated consumer goods. -BuyOurEverything

Have you ever been to a socialist/communist country. Do you know that socialism doesn&#39;t create freedom. People aren&#39;t allowed to practice their religion. Regardless if you believe in God or Not, The simple fact of the matter if a man can&#39;t have his own business (i.e. be independent). This isn&#39;t freedom. Freedom is the ability for an indivual to be himself, regardless of what the state thinks is right or wrong. The only way the people can be free is if the state and the people are one, but the state has to reflect the peoples state of mind and in this way. You get Freedom with Order....

[BuyOurEverything]

Have you ever been to a socialist/communist country. Do you know that socialism doesn&#39;t create freedom. People aren&#39;t allowed to practice their religion. Regardless if you believe in God or Not, The simple fact of the matter if a man can&#39;t have his own business (i.e. be independent). This isn&#39;t freedom. Freedom is the ability for an indivual to be himself, regardless of what the state thinks is right or wrong. The only way the people can be free is if the state and the people are one, but the state has to reflect the peoples state of mind and in this way. You get Freedom with Order....

Well there are a million reasons why one could argue that socialist countries today are somewhat less than perfect but there are other threads for this and let&#39;s not turn this one into one of those. If you&#39;re not a socialist, what are you doing here? Although I agree that people should have the right to believe what they want to believe religiously, I think it should be discouraged by the government. While I would consider myself a liberatarian, I am not an anarchist and I believe there is a need for order and laws, I just don&#39;t support laws that limit freedom for no good reason (ie puritan anti-promiscuityprostitutionmarijuanasoft drug laws) or laws that only harm people who consent to it (ie hard drugbdsmeunthanasia etc laws.) I support laws that limit harm to non-consenting parties (ie anti-free trademurderassult laws) even if they limit some freedoms. I&#39;ve never used the argument that marijuana should be legal because it&#39;s a plant or because it&#39;s natural, I think it should be legal because it does minimal harm to anybody and no harm to any non-consenting people. If there was a natural plant which was highly poisonus, I would be the first one in line to get rid of it. Likewise, I support the legalization of artificial drugs, like ecstasy with equal ferver.

[RBG Soldier]

Like a member of the Black Panther Party once told when ask if he was a socialist or communist. I&#39;m a socialist in the sense I socialize myself with the people with their wants,needs and I have a common sense of how I can change these things. If I am a socialist but one has to look at things from all sides or you will be blinded by that which you refuse to see. In no way was I trying to take it there either. It was a question of if you been there, then you know it&#39;s not all milk and honey. That people in cuba still feel oppress. People in russia were force to work all in the name of communism. But like I said I believe in the people. Not Ideas

[Alejandro C]

&#39;freedom is the ability of an individual to be oneself, regardless of what the state thinks is right or wrong&#39; -RGB


what if someone is a racist. wouldn&#39;t you be argueing that the state has no right to step in and stop them from lynching blacks.

you are arguing that order be completely taken away so that individual freedoms can run rampant.

if a man can&#39;t have his own business he can&#39;t be free? not everyone can be in control of their own businesses. somepeople will always have to work together inorder to get things done. you spoke of the state and the people being one. this can only be done in a socialist society where everyone is working together for the common good. this creates a national identity that people work for, they become the state because they ALL work for the government.

individual economic freedoms are taken away as more order is spread into all people.

freedom is not having your life already decided because of how much money your parents had.


BOE- i&#39;ve never heard it explained like that. i like those ideas. i guess i just never understood because i couldn&#39;t categorize things like that. good post. (though i would argue that abortion causes harm to a non-consenting party, but i would only do it to piss you off, HA&#33; so forget it.)

[RBG Soldier]

"what if someone is a racist. wouldn&#39;t you be argueing that the state has no right to step in and stop them from lynching blacks."-Your qoute

Your right I would be arguing. But truthfully what one holds in their minds, no one can take away. So no matter what you think you can&#39;t stop someone from what they think and no just cause a system in socialist doesn&#39;t mean it is one with the people. As easy as we would like it to be that way. It just isn&#39;t in reality, but you are right about a system where the people and the state are one. We do all work for the government, but if I feel I want to work for self. Then I should have that right.

[Alejandro C]

sorry i didn&#39;t mean to imply that socialism causes the oneness. rather oneness causes sociallism.
i realize that you can have a socialist or a communist country where the people are in revolt against the government. however i can not see a system or culture in which the people are one with the government but are not socialistic, or communistic.

if you are a part of the state you would not only be working for the state and others, you WOULD be working for yourself.

if all of the people are one they will feel the need to take care of eachother. they will feel that everyone should be equal. no one would say &#39;i want to be independent, i want to be outside of what everyone else is&#39; and if they did say that they could just leave. i know, i&#39;m being idealistic.


i can&#39;t imagine your ideal society though. capitalism with a very economically conservatively involved government with no social controls?

also i would say to you that you can control things like racism. you can control somethings about people&#39;s minds. racism is the product of capitalism. if you get rid of capitalism, racism will also vanish.

[cubist]

they way i see it is once you have faught for freedom to do, you will need to fight for freedom from doing.

as long as things can be bought someone will always have control

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 03:40 PM
they way i see it is once you have faught for freedom to do, you will need to fight for freedom from doing.

as long as things can be bought someone will always have control
Good points, the second struggle is agaist backlash of the counter-revolutionairies, I would hope the first part went well. I agree, that is why we need a communist goverment to stand for the working class and say "the rights of the workers are not for sale."

[RBG Soldier]

Let clear somethings up. When I say work for myself. I&#39;m not implying I want to separate myself from the people, but that if I have an Idea. Shouldn&#39;t I being able to live this out. Who knows this could benefit the system overall. This is what I&#39;m saying. Yes capitalism did creat racism, but racism still exist in Cuba and I know this for a fact. It existed in Russia to during their communist rule. I&#39;m not trying to argue with you about this neither because there is other shit serious than this topic in regards to where you and I have taking it.

"as long as things can be bought someone will always have control"- cephas

True but what one does with his control determines whether he/she deals in equality or oppression. There will always be a leader, so rest assure there will always be followers, but if the leader and his follows are ONE. Then there is only ONE LEADER. THEM

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Alejandro [email protected] 27 2003, 02:43 AM
The basic struggle of most political minds is the struggle between freedom and order. if the government gives people freedom it is taking away order and vice versa.

i am surprised that many people on this forum call themselves freedomists or other names implying they support the comlete freedom of themselves to do whatever they want when ever they want.

it seems to me that communism directly conflicts that idea by severely limiting economic freedoms.

Isn&#39;t being completely free to do whatever you want hyper-capitalism?

I&#39;m not saying that i believe governments should be authoritarian. i believe that tight economic controls actually widen the freedom of the population by giving everyone the same opportunity and base for living.

I also believe on limits of free speech and media controls. I think these should be regulated similarly to the way communism regulates the economy. regulated to make things more equal. for example eliminating or merging the major media companies and allowing new news stations to broadcast usuing government money. or destroying the two political parties to allow new parties to emerge. these things clearly violate the US first amendment but i am in favor of that.

however, i live in the US and believe that since my goverment is directly against me i should have no responsability to obey its laws or help it.


in essence i believe that sacrificing freedom for order will bring a new kind of freedom to the people.
The basic struggle of most political minds is the struggle between freedom and order. if the government gives people freedom it is taking away order and vice versa.

Like others have said, ruling class governments give no freedoms. The progress made, is of the blood of the workers alone. The "freedom&#39;s," given, are in place to keep the order that serves the ruling class.

i am surprised that many people on this forum call themselves freedomists or other names implying they support the comlete freedom of themselves to do whatever they want when ever they want.

That much freedom impinges on the freedom of others. Humans are social/intelectual creatures not solitary, therefore they cannot have the freedom to do whatever they like, though we are on the other end of the spectrum now.

it seems to me that communism directly conflicts that idea by severely limiting economic freedoms.

I see no such thing. Communism is an end to bring freedoms back to the people and only takes away some of the rights of those who would usse them to oppress others. Commmunism does require a state at one point to transition to a point where there is unsubstansial resistance to a democratic/anarchistic society. This is simply out of necessity.

Isn&#39;t being completely free to do whatever you want hyper-capitalism?

No, capitalism is an economic system with restrictions to keep an orderly market.

I&#39;m not saying that i believe governments should be authoritarian. i believe that tight economic controls actually widen the freedom of the population by giving everyone the same opportunity and base for living.

Great, me too. Workers should have the right to what they produce.

I also believe on limits of free speech and media controls. I think these should be regulated similarly to the way communism regulates the economy. regulated to make things more equal. for example eliminating or merging the major media companies and allowing new news stations to broadcast usuing government money. or destroying the two political parties to allow new parties to emerge. these things clearly violate the US first amendment but i am in favor of that.

I am not for limiting free speach, except to stifle threats. I believe that public voices should be aired and that people will see through all of the other bullshit if they have the option. This is why we need a critical, educated society, which can only be brought about by the abolition of the ruling class.

however, i live in the US and believe that since my goverment is directly against me i should have no responsability to obey its laws or help it.

I am with you on that&#33;

in essence i believe that sacrificing freedom for order will bring a new kind of freedom to the people.

In a way, I agree.

[Alejandro C]

Originally posted by RBG [email protected] 27 2003, 10:00 PM


Have you ever been to a socialist/communist country. Do you know that socialism doesn&#39;t create freedom. People aren&#39;t allowed to practice their religion. Regardless if you believe in God or Not, The simple fact of the matter if a man can&#39;t have his own business (i.e. be independent). This isn&#39;t freedom. Freedom is the ability for an indivual to be himself, regardless of what the state thinks is right or wrong. The only way the people can be free is if the state and the people are one, but the state has to reflect the peoples state of mind and in this way. You get Freedom with Order....
"there are two kinds of nationalism, revolutionary nationalism and reactionary nationalism. revolutionary nationalism is first dependent upon a people&#39;s revolution with the end goal being the people in power. therefore to be a revolutionary nationalist you would by necessity have to be a socialist. if you are a reactionary nationalist you are not a socialist and your end goal is the oppression of the peope.
[...]
the Black Panther Party is a revolutionary nationalist group and we see a major contradiction between capitalism in this country and our interests. we realize that this country became very rich upon slavery and that slavery is capitalism in the extreme. we have two evils to fight, capitalism and racism. we must destroy both racism and capitalism."

-Huey P. Newton


RGB- this isn&#39;t ment to pick a fight with you but just to show you that maybe your conception of socialism is not exactly how some of the rest of us use that word. there are different forms of socialism just like any other ism. some forms leave more freedom and less order than others- democratic socialsim for instance. recognize that the Panthers are saying the same thing that i am. what you are arguing sound an awful lot like a revisionist approach which even coffeshop revolutionaries disdain. afterall this IS a takeover, not a makeover.

also racism does not exist in Cuba and hasn&#39;t existed in cuba for the last hundred years since it became free from spain. the only racism is the occasional shame of a person for having to light of skin.


Elect Marx- i see free speach at times as a kind of social capitalism. people assume that if you let the media go unregulated it will provide competition for itself and all the viewpoints will get out and the different companies will check and balance one another. same thing as capitalism but its called the &#39;marketplace of ideas&#39;. i think this is bullshit. as is painfully obivious in america media becomes monopolistic just as businesses do which gives all the power of communications within the hands of a few which control the market in order to keep in power. just like capitalism and the econ.- this is all what i was talking about when i said limiting freespeech. i did not mean limiting the rights of one individual.

something i was trying to get across in this topic is that capitalism is more than just an economic system. its a mindset that says if you let people go free and do what they want everything will work its own way out. that is why i didn&#39;t understand why some people apply capitalistic concepts to other areas besides the economy. it turns out i wasn&#39;t really thinking about it correctly, concerning social laws, as was pointed out by BOE. however i think this still applies to things like the US first amendement- freespeech and freepress. i believe regulating these things and taking away some of their &#39;freedoms&#39; would bring about more order and in the long run more freedoms. just like socialism does for the economic system

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Alejandro [email protected] 29 2003, 07:56 AM
Elect Marx- i see free speach at times as a kind of social capitalism. people assume that if you let the media go unregulated it will provide competition for itself and all the viewpoints will get out and the different companies will check and balance one another. same thing as capitalism but its called the &#39;marketplace of ideas&#39;. i think this is bullshit. as is painfully obivious in america media becomes monopolistic just as businesses do which gives all the power of communications within the hands of a few which control the market in order to keep in power. just like capitalism and the econ.- this is all what i was talking about when i said limiting freespeech. i did not mean limiting the rights of one individual.

something i was trying to get across in this topic is that capitalism is more than just an economic system. its a mindset that says if you let people go free and do what they want everything will work its own way out. that is why i didn&#39;t understand why some people apply capitalistic concepts to other areas besides the economy. it turns out i wasn&#39;t really thinking about it correctly, concerning social laws, as was pointed out by BOE. however i think this still applies to things like the US first amendement- freespeech and freepress. i believe regulating these things and taking away some of their &#39;freedoms&#39; would bring about more order and in the long run more freedoms. just like socialism does for the economic system
Why did this topic die down so quickly? I found it rather interesting.

Alejandro C,
I think your rejection of "free speach," should really be described as a rejection of monopolisation of speach outlets. If a ruling class takes control of all the areas that deal with communication (which is a business in capitalism), this is a monopoly. Power to speak to the people, should not be taken from the people. So by this logic, I see you as advovating free speach. If you want to stop messages of the ruling class, I think actions speak louder than words. If someone speaks in a pro-capitalist manner, they will act in a pro-capitalist manner. Stop their crimes, challange their words. I see no reason to limit the freedom of speach and I see every reason to put an end to the expliotation by the capitalist.

Capitalism as a mindset...I see this as really the ideology behind capitalism. The ideology of the capitalist. Capitalism itself is not really inlusive of this but it springs from the brain-washing aspect caused by a ruling class hijacking the system. I would call it a blindspot, an ideological oversight and a massive social disorder.
I agree that these "freedoms" to expliot, must be done away with.

[Alejandro C]

thats exactly right. i think placing some limits on speach would create more freedom. i was argueing more against parts of the first amendment- abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press- and the way that is interpreted by the courts and congress to allow the monopolistic aspects of the media control.