Who wants freedom anyways?

[PenguinChe]

Who really wants freedom anyways? Society has put this huge emphasis an freedom, but in effect society, at least modern day, has never experienced what freedom is. Freedom means in effect Anarchy, now wither this word gives you a positive or negative connotation it is the only way to be completely free...or is it? (I will get to that later) We residence of the "free world" have been blinded by this amazing thing called consumerism. For example we have the ability to choose between 80 some odd types of cereal, but we do not have the "freedom" to choose any cereal we want. This is because not everything is cereal. There is a definition of cereal as constructed by society, anything that is not of this definition can not be called "cereal". This in effect is a law. I cannot, if I want, produce a box of cardboard flakes, package them in a colorful cartoon laden bag and sell it as cereal. The constraints of what is deemed acceptable as cereal will not allow it. So hence I am in no way "free" to purchase any cereal I want, since no one can produce anything and make it cereal. This is why consumerism acts as filler for freedom. By the capitalist system allowing me to choose an enormous plethora of goods, widgets and what not, I am fed the allusion that I am free; because I have choice I am free. But choice is not the constitutor of freedom since choice is inhibited by law.
Now this alone is not the only factor in why many people believe they are free, propaganda, ignorance etc all play a part in this, but I believe it is the single most driving force in this misconception.
All you have to do is look at your normal day routine to see the lack of freedom that you have. When I walk out of my house I have to be wearing clothes, as I walk to the crosswalk I may not cross the street until the little electronic sign tells me so etc. these are examples of the small hindrances of freedom. Larger ones being, I can't kill someone if I feel like it, I can't rob a bank, I can't rob a robber for that matter, I can't smoke pot, nor smoke cigarettes in a public place. Now some may try to argue that you are free to do whatever, no one can really stop you, at least not to begin with. But the fact that you have a consequence for your action, even crossing the street when the little hand says you can't, holds a reprimand. For that exact reason we are not free, but bineded by a code of laws set forth by society. This is exactly what democracy is, though no true Democracy is near existence, we see it in the make up of [/I]most[I] laws in our society. In its purest form, laws are created by "the people" to protect and represent "the people" from people. So in theory mob freedom is obtainable but individual freedom with out anarchy is non-exsistent.

The governments’ ability to enforce laws is in direct correlation with the person’s ability to be free. The higher the ability the lower the freedom, and consequently, the lower the ability the higher the freedom. I dare to say that a person in Botswana is living in a freer state than I, living in the United States. Because of the Botswana government’s inability to present enforcement of laws people are less likely to suffer a consequence for actions breaking the law, while the US's ability to strictly enforce laws raises my chances of consequence for my actions, thus limiting my freedom. Hence the closer you are to anarchy the freer the person becomes.

Here’s the curveball
So if freedom is solely measured by my ability to act as an individual with out risk of consequence than Anarchy is the only way in which everyone can be free. But if freedom is also based upon my ability to be unobstructed by others can I be free in Anarchy? What I mean is this; if I am free to kill, rape, plunder without chance of reprisal some one else is allowed the same liberties, therefore I am subjugated to his will and hence am not free. This is according to the common ideology of the founding fathers belief that all men be free of each other.

So the real question remains; if I am subjugated under the rule of all or the rule of one in either or all forms of society, what is freedom? Is it a tangible entity in society, and
can freedom even exist?

[NovelGentry]

For example we have the ability to choose between 80 some odd types of cereal, but we do not have the "freedom" to choose any cereal we want. This is because not everything is cereal. There is a definition of cereal as constructed by society, anything that is not of this definition can not be called "cereal".

So in order to be free we have to break down language so that no words mean anything in particular? I get what you're trying to say I think, but this is a poor example, and I can only hope you realize how silly it sounds.


This in effect is a law. I cannot, if I want, produce a box of cardboard flakes, package them in a colorful cartoon laden bag and sell it as cereal.

I very much disagree... You can do this quite easily, possibly not on a wide scale with the FDA on your ass, but easily within your own little niche. The problem isn't that you can't do it, it's that no one is enough of an idiot to buy it.

You'd do much better to make your argument based on monopolistic practices and market control by means of competition. There is a very heavy line between the insanity that one company may produce and the choice of products that is limited by capitalist competition.

What your argument boils own to is that anything predefined or predetermined limits freedom. Yes, I agree, but there are some things which must be in place to in order to make society work as a whole and not collapse on itself.

Lastly, I'm not an anarchist and don't claim to know a lot about them, but I was under the impression that anarchy allows freedom based on the idea that man is preconditioned to simply look after his own peace. I don't think any anarchist strongly believes that their brand of freedom is going to lead to everyone comitting murder because they can, which is implied by your definition of freedom.

Freedom is not something that is only limited by authoritarian positions external of your own being, freedcom is something you limit yourself in every day. You limit yourself because of your moral upbringing and your compassion towards your fellow man. In short, by your definition freedom is much more than a state of complete liberation from external control, it is a state of complete liberation from internal control -- and this equates to a level of insanity proven only by your example of wishing you had the freedom to sell cardboard as serial, or possibly more important, wishing you had the freedom to buy it.

[PenguinChe]

By attacking me on the quotes you chose I think your missing the purpose they serve. I am trying to explain the idea in a simplistic way, which I obviously did not achieve.

With what you say to my example

QUOTE
I very much disagree... You can do this quite easily, possibly not on a wide scale with the FDA on your ass, but easily within your own little niche.

You hit my point right there. You do not have the freedom to do somthing because there is a consequense. (FDA) If you were free to do it there would be no consequence. I addressed this idea directly in my first post "Now some may try to argue..."

-Yes my argument does boil down to anything predefined or predetermined inhibits freedom. It also boils down to exactly what you say afterwards. Of course a society cannot run without some princible guidelines, thats why I ask the question; who wants freedom anyways? The whole basis of this post was to assault the idea that we are a free society of people..."The Free World", and also the idea that freedom is a positive thing, whatever positive means.

-With the way your speaking about it I would have to take the stance that Anarchy and Anarchism are two different things. Anarcy by definition is a state of no government or coherent force of control. This is what I refer to in my post. If Anarchism is the same as you describe it, (I'm in the same boat on this one) then it is some infallible state of living such as Utopian Communism. The idea that people will live harmoniously together is udderly misguided. Human nature has proven this. Also I never stated that everyone is going to go around killing people because they can, please when an example is used attempt to think of it in the context and not simply misuse it to attack a post. The way I am speaking of being free in Anarchy allows for someone to do what it is they want, through lust, ambition, or concious means that I am subject to thier will the same as they are to mine. Therefor I am not free of man.

[NovelGentry]

Well the reason I quoted you is quite simple, it was point out certain flaws in your definition of freedom. I agree that freedom can only exist without predetermined things, but your example of language makes the assumption that language is so predetermined. I think freedom can easily exist with language (which you try to destinguish as not being possible because of how we define cereal). I don't think there is anything in language alone which inhibits freedom, but there is when language is put to law, which is completely different. In law terms are defined prior to being used pricesely for the reason that language is completely arbitrary -- thus language itself as something "predetermined" (and this is said loosely) does not limit freedom, just it's application to rules.

What must be in place however is a general understanding. Under a system where language existed and was for the most part predetermined but not applicable in law then you could easily say cardboard can be cereal -- although by definition it would require the cardboard to be made of something other than conventional paper pulp -- quite possibly a wheat pulp. Cardboard itself is defined as being processed from paper pulp, but in turn you have to look at the definition of paper, and so on and so on, all the way back till you've completely proven cardboard can't be cereal. I don't believe this is possible because of the way language works... each time you look at the requirements for one thing to be something it is going to be based on other more broad requirements, such as cardboard being based on paper, paper being based on trees, trees being plants, and of course the wheat is a plant. Thus cardboard can be made from wheat, and cereal can be cardboard. This is exactly what I mean when I say language is arbitrary, thus is not able to inhibit freedom.

As I said, I don't claim to know much about anarchism (or anarchy for that matter if they are indeed different as more than just words). From what I have gathered from many anarchists, the drive is very similar to that of utopian communism. A lot of what is different is arguments about how to get there and what type of authority exists after. For example, communists would argue for a dictatorship of the proletariat and a transitional period to communism. Anarchists would want the complete over throw of government/state with no reestablished body to take it's place.


Also I never stated that everyone is going to go around killing people because they can, please when an example is used attempt to think of it in the context and not simply misuse it to attack a post.

Maybe you should take your own advice. I never said that you stated such a thing, I said it was implied by your definition of freedom. Which it is, if freedom is to be determined by the ability to do such a thing then we have to assume people are actually going to do it, because if they are not it is not an issue. If people were somehow limited inherently from doing this, it wouldn't be an issue of freedom, but an issue of ability. So next time that you're going to say I said something, make sure I actually said it before responding to it.

As I've said in the past, anarchism/anarchy (once again if they are the same) is something I see as highly idealistic in order to work. If you ask me it would only lead to it's own collapse back into people exploiting one another. And it cannot be said to be against another person's will or freedom if they agree to it, can it? This is not to say that it's not an authoritarian position, but who's the authority that stops authority? I don't know, as I said, I'm not well versed in this sort of thing thus have little more input on it.

In short I can only say that I understand what you were getting at. It thought I made that clear in my original post and only took issues with the way you presented it -- and the argument that language itself is a predetermined thing which inhibits freedom. This I disagree with because I do not believe language can be considered predetermined -- it can be generally accepted, but there is no final say on the issue. In the event someone argues that someone elses definition is wrong they can claim regional slang, dialect, or that they are speaking a different language all together which is just very similar with some small exceptions.

We make general acceptions in language because we have to to communicate, not because words are what they mean and that is that. It's not the same as saying that a tree is solid. A tree most definitely is solid if we accept the general definitions of "tree", "is", and "solid"... but there is not absolute that says we must, thus is solid is the accepted definition of liquid, a tree is not solid. Like I said, it's semantics and it's arbitrary, thus it is a poor argument to base a concept such as freedom on.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 09:22 PM
So if freedom is solely measured by my ability to act as an individual with out risk of consequence than Anarchy is the only way in which everyone can be free. But if freedom is also based upon my ability to be unobstructed by others can I be free in Anarchy? What I mean is this; if I am free to kill, rape, plunder without chance of reprisal some one else is allowed the same liberties, therefore I am subjugated to his will and hence am not free.
If a society allows the "freedom to kill", then it's not free at all. After all, it's like a dictatorship where everyone fights to be "the great leader". Not too free if you ask me.

The notion of freedom as "lack of coercion" doesn't seem to be accurate if you ask me.

[LSD]

Well we remember what Kris Kristofferson said right?
Freedom's just another word... and all that.

In any case, freedom as defined as a complete independence from any form of constraint, coercion, or control is impossible.

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there are things you physically cannot do.

Once you accept that basically axiomatic tenant of life, you have to eqaully accept that for any society to function you have to be reasonably secure in your person, and that for any just society to function you have to reasonably provided for as well.

You cannot be "free to do anything", you cannot buy cereal that is not cereal by definition, because if it is not cereal then you are not buying cereal. Playing with language is fun, but it doesn't prove anything except that you cannot do the impossibe, which sort of goes without saying because it's the impossible.


Whenever people speak about freedom they mean reasonably ahcievable freedom within certain naturally required, socially enforced, temporarily maleable, and culturally memetic restrictions. But that doesn't make so good a bumper sticker, you know?

[Guest1]

Haha, good to see you posting again LSD, we need people like you around here.

[PenguinChe]

Quote
Whenever people speak about freedom they mean reasonably ahcievable freedom within certain naturally required, socially enforced, temporarily maleable, and culturally memetic restrictions.

So who gets to decide these boundaries of freedom. In some way every person is going to feel oppressed by these restrictions. There is no singular concious, nor is there an overiding natural law that can dictate what is acceptable in a society to restrict. The whole point is "freedom" is a bogus term used in propaganda as a means to cohearce ignorant populations to the goal of the proprieter of the movement, system or whatever else you want to call it.

[PenguinChe]

Quote
Whenever people speak about freedom they mean reasonably ahcievable freedom within certain naturally required, socially enforced, temporarily maleable, and culturally memetic restrictions.

So who gets to decide these boundaries of freedom. In some way every person is going to feel oppressed by these restrictions. There is no singular concious, nor is there an overiding natural law that can dictate what is acceptable in a society to restrict. The whole point is "freedom" is a bogus term used in propaganda as a means to cohearce ignorant populations to the goal of the proprieter of the movement, system or whatever else you want to call it.

[PenguinChe]

Quote
Whenever people speak about freedom they mean reasonably ahcievable freedom within certain naturally required, socially enforced, temporarily maleable, and culturally memetic restrictions.

So who gets to decide these boundaries of freedom. In some way every person is going to feel oppressed by these restrictions. There is no singular concious, nor is there an overiding natural law that can dictate what is acceptable in a society to restrict. The whole point is "freedom" is a bogus term used in propaganda as a means to cohearce ignorant populations to the goal of the proprieter of the movement, system or whatever else you want to call it.

[God of Imperia]

You can do as you please, as long as you don't harm someone else with your actions or endanger the society. That isn't so difficult to follow, is it.