The "Freedom Promise" in an Enforced Civilisation and it's use.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

I've been considering how to phrase

As a civilisation that is (almost invariably) built on the backs of the workers matures to the point that it attains theoretically functional democracy (like the US, France, Germany or the UK) and has no true opposition. It begins to enforce laws that are aimed toward the goal of being more "humane" or "Civilised." In plain english it seeks to impose the morality of the ruling class upon the underclass by threat of punishment.

At roughly the same time (or slightly preceeding) each of these usurpations of freedom, there is emphasis placed on existing personal freedoms or what I dub the Freedom Promise. This is a govenment or ruler reminding their people of the select freedoms they still keep rather than those they have had stolen away in return for the theoretical protection of a law that may never effect the idividual.

No matter how advanced a civilisation appears it still functions upon these simple principles.

"Civilisation is not a natural state, it must be enforced.

The universal method of enforcement is punishment.

The practice of control by punishment is oppression.

The way for the few to oppress the many is by fear of punishment.

The ultimate punishment for an individual is death.

To oppress by fear of punishment one must be known to be able to kill."

Riot police, soldiers, militia, SWAT whatever it might be. There is always somebody in the pay of the rulers whose job it is to systematically supress the freedoms of others into the narrow drone-like existance the rulers desire. More than this though these people will not be punished for harming (or even killing you) you as long as somebody can prove you have violated the ruler's morality to no particular defined degree. This is where the Freedom Promise come into it's own by reminding us that the law is there to protect us not pen us in.

The more advanced the process of enforced civilisation becomes the more the Freedom Promise enables the rulers to steal freedoms from the ruled, implanting in it's stead a fear of those who free themselves. Using media to brand them with names like "criminals," "rebels," "layabouts," "Scum" and "terrorists."

People are free because murderers and their bosses tell them so. Is that really enough?

[Bud Struggle]

I'm guessing you are an Anarchist--let me know if I'm wrong.


I've been considering how to phrase

As a civilisation that is (almost invariably) built on the backs of the workers matures to the point that it attains theoretically functional democracy (like the US, France, Germany or the UK) and has no true opposition. In these cases, yes--but I don't know if your law could be made into a universal law. In South America some pretty decent democracies have been toppled by reactionary-millitary governments.



It begins to enforce laws that are aimed toward the goal of being more "humane" or "Civilised." In plain english it seeks to impose the morality of the ruling class upon the underclass by threat of punishment. Are you saying that the Ruling Class are more humaine than the workers? Maybe not--but laws protect the workers just as well as they protect the Ruling Class. The law against murder protects workers, the law against theft protect workers--one has to look at arrest records and see who does the "crimes"--especially the violent crimes. It's usually the people in the poor communities commiting crimes against one another. Is it such a bad thing to stop such goings on?


At roughly the same time (or slightly preceeding) each of these usurpations of freedom, there is emphasis placed on existing personal freedoms or what I dub the Freedom Promise. This is a govenment or ruler reminding their people of the select freedoms they still keep rather than those they have had stolen away in return for the theoretical protection of a law that may never effect the idividual. The is an excellent point. Rather than EVERYTHING being free besides for some specific rules--everything is NOT free--except for these specific rights.


"Civilisation is not a natural state, it must be enforced. Or just as easily--you can say that part of civilization is a certain uniformity that insures a basic tranquility. Our "Social Contract" with one another states that I don't kill you or you don't kill me--and if either of us break the contact we are punished. Civilization may not be natural--but it's all there is.


The universal method of enforcement is punishment.No, there are other enforcements--like social pressure, etc. But punishment remains a good deterrent.


The practice of control by punishment is oppression. Maybe, the the oppression of some to the betterment of others--within reason is not always a bad thing.


The way for the few to oppress the many is by fear of punishment. But in the social Democracies that you mentioned above, for the most part, people are in general agreement that the rules are good. I doubt anyone would want to revoke the laws against theft of or murder.


The ultimate punishment for an individual is death. It is rather final--but there are probable worse punishments.


To oppress by fear of punishment one must be known to be able to kill." I think you run into trouble here-I believe only in America they use the death penalty--and they use it rather infrequently--on some rather nasty characters--child murders and the such. I doubt the average citizen feels under threat of being gassed or electrocuted.


Riot police, soldiers, militia, SWAT whatever it might be. There is always somebody in the pay of the rulers whose job it is to systematically supress the freedoms of others into the narrow drone-like existance the rulers desire. I don't believe I'm seen any of these orginizations other than in a parade. It isn't something to worry about, is it?


More than this though these people will not be punished for harming (or even killing you) you as long as somebody can prove you have violated the ruler's morality to no particular defined degree. I don't know--where I live the police spend their days watching for people rolling through stop signs and making improper turns.



The more advanced the process of enforced civilisation becomes the more the Freedom Promise enables the rulers to steal freedoms from the ruled, implanting in it's stead a fear of those who free themselves. Using media to brand them with names like "criminals," "rebels," "layabouts," "Scum" and "terrorists." There's a difference. Mostly the rulers (for what of a better word) are paid by the people to hire people to protect them from criminals and such. Nobody wants to get murdered by a robber in their sleep.


People are free because murderers and their bosses tell them so. Is that really enough?Another good point. Police, to an extent, are thugs that Society hires to protect us from other thugs in many cases. They certainly keep burglers away from my door--and for that I'm thankful. Except the police aren't murders--at least not where I live. Once in a while there's a shooting--but it's not like "Good" people are being shot. For the most part it's people that I want to be protected from.

I see nothing wrong with that.

[Mindtoaster]

.

I don't believe I'm seen any of these orginizations other than in a parade. It isn't something to worry about, is it?



Yes, but you're a factory owner and probably really sheltered in that manner :)
People are randomly beaten, tazered, and killed by the police all the time where I live. This even happens in the middle-class white neighborhoods and such.
I think if you were to type "police brutality" into google half the results would be about New Orleans

[Bud Struggle]

People are randomly beaten, tazered, and killed by the police all the time where I live. This even happens in the middle-class white neighborhoods and such.
I think if you were to type "police brutality" into google half the results would be about New Orleans

Well, I wish you said you were fron Des Moines then I could have a good argument with you about how you were wrong. You may very well be right about New Orleans.

But don't you guys have an easy going Democrat Mayor--Nagel, that is looking after you? Doesn't he control the police?

[Robert]

To the OP, is there anything specific that you really want to do that you have lost the freedom to do?

[Mindtoaster]

Well, I wish you said you were fron Des Moines then I could have a good argument with you about how you were wrong. You may very well be right about New Orleans.

But don't you guys have an easy going Democrat Mayor--Nagel, that is looking after you? Doesn't he control the police?

Nagin has never had much of a grip over the police. We're one of the most corrupt cities in America.

But don't get me wrong, its gotten a bit better since Katrina, but its still reaaaallly bad. I interned at an office in the downtown recently and one of my co-workers had been rear-ended by a cop out in the countryside. The cop pulled a gun on him and was going to arrest him if it weren't for a russian tourist couple passing by that saw the whole thing. Almost like something out of Superbad. I know of people who have been beaten with nightsticks simply for asking a cop "why?"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dyslexia: Why are you conflating class society and civilisation? If class society and civilisation were truly inseperable, then events like the Paris Commune would never have happened.

This conflation is exactly the same mistake the "anarcho"-primitivists make.

[Jazzratt]

To the OP, is there anything specific that you really want to do that you have lost the freedom to do?

What's the point of this question? The thread is about problems in the assumption that someone is "free" in this society (or any other, including those postulated by the anarchists - which makes it suspect, but anyway) whether or not the OP personally wishes to do something that is against the law is neither here nor there.

Personally though there are a few things I am prevented from doing in Great Britain (where I live), that I would want to: smoke marijuana, own a gun, smoke in a pub and so on.

[Robert]

whether or not the OP personally wishes to do something that is against the law is neither here nor there.Okay, fine. It doesn't matter whether the OP personally wishes x, y or z. I am just curious as to what he, or anyone else on the board, considers as a serious limitation on his freedom. He seemed like a logical person to ask since he started the thread.

As for the restrictions on your own liberty, I'd answer that: 1) the ones you describe are presumably the legislative result of some public demand, not a royal edict the masses oppose; and 2) where I live, you can buy, sell, trade, keep and discharge firearms and ammo, with limits on type (no machine guns, nukes, bazookas or sawed off shotguns). As many as you want. Assuming you're not a minor or convicted felon. You may also apply for and obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm on your person, with some limitations on where you go with it. (No liquor stores or bar rooms, schools or playgrounds, etc. Nothing's perfect, eh?)

You may also smoke in many, though not all, bar rooms. I tried to persuade Ulster once to come and visit Billy Bob's (honky tonk) in Ft. Worth, but he wouldn't come because he thinks we won't mend his leg when he falls off the mechanical bull and breaks it. His leg, I mean. Anyway, it varies by state and municipality, but you ain't gonna believe how much tobacco they smoke in Billy Bob's on a Saturday night.

Marijuana? Well, two out of three ain't bad.

[Jazzratt]

Okay, fine. It doesn't matter whether the OP personally wishes x, y or z. I am just curious as to what he, or anyone else on the board, considers as a serious limitation on his freedom. He seemed like a logical person to ask since he started the thread.

A vast number of things are against the law, many are things which do not affect other people. While it is not any skin off my nose that I am forbidden by law to wonder around nude (for example) but there is no reason someone should be prevented from doing so. Wishing to do something and thinking it should be banned by force are two different positions.


As for the restrictions on your own liberty, I'd answer that: 1) the ones you describe are presumably the legislative result of some public demand, not a royal edict the masses oppose

But this is what the OP is driving at, the whole point of a set of laws has nothing to do with "public demand" or "the masses" and everything to do with the imposition (from on high) of ruling class morality through the threat of harm.


2) where I live, you can buy, sell, trade, keep and discharge firearms and ammo, with limits on type (no machine guns, nukes, bazookas or sawed off shotguns). As many as you want. Assuming you're not a minor or convicted felon. You may also apply for and obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm on your person, with some limitations on where you go with it. (No liquor stores or bar rooms, schools or playgrounds, etc. Nothing's perfect, eh?)

That's okay. I don't fucking live there, though, do I? THis is specifically why I told you about where I live when I was listing things I want to do that are against the law.


You may also smoke in many, though not all, bar rooms. I tried to persuade Ulster once to come and visit Billy Bob's (honky tonk) in Ft. Worth, but he wouldn't come because he thinks we won't mend his leg when he falls off the mechanical bull and breaks it. His leg, I mean. Anyway, it varies by state and municipality, but you ain't gonna believe how much tobacco they smoke in Billy Bob's on a Saturday night.

AGain, though Billy Bob's is probably a fine establishment (although it's probably serving the pisswater you guys insist on calling "beer") it's not exactly down the round from my local babby.


Marijuana? Well, two out of three ain't bad.

There's a pharmocopia of things I enjoy that are illegal and no logical basis in their being illegal. I think "ain't bad" is understating it a little.

[Robert]

While it is not any skin off my nose that I am forbidden by law to wonder around nude (for example)Her majesty's loss, I'm sure.


But this is what the OP is driving at, the whole point of a set of laws has nothing to do with "public demand" or "the masses" and everything to do with the imposition (from on high) of ruling class morality through the threat of harm.What? It has everything, exclusively to do (I hate bold type, but you started it) with "public demand." The majority of the public, anyway. To the extent the majority chez vous differs with your views on public policy, well, tough shit. Just curious: would you be allowed to start a private club in your neighborhood and serve beer and tobacco?


That's okay. I don't fucking live there, though, do I? THis is specifically why I told you about where I live when I was listing things I want to do that are against the law.
Amerika's loss, I'm sure. I know why you said it. I'm the one that asked. I'm just trying to suggest that the problem is between you, or the OP, and the British government, not with government per se. It does sound like everything over there is hyper regulated, cradle to grave. But the People elect the government, right? Can't you run for political office? Why not? All this said, I agree of course with the OP that creeping and stultifying regulation -- at a minimum -- seems to emerge from government everywhere. The difference is I think we are all answerable for it to some extent.


AGain, though Billy Bob's is probably a fine establishment (although it's probably serving the pisswater you guys insist on calling "beer") it's not exactly down the round from my local babby.
"Down the round"? God I love that. I can't deny that they sell way more Bud Lite than Bass, Guiness, or Olde Speckled Hen, but there is no British beer you can't get within 20 minutes of my house. We'll even warm it up for you on the stove so you don't get homesick.


There's a pharmocopia of things I enjoy that are illegal and no logical basis in their being illegal. I think "ain't bad" is understating it a little.
After a night of debauchery at Billy Bob's, we'll dress you in a coat and tie and go to a revival at a giant Pentecostal Church. There you'll find Jay-sus, and won't want drugs anymore.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Robert the great - Have you ever entered the UK or the real word?

You may want to visit a representative democracy, what happens in such a system is you are offered an array of puppets and made to choose between them based on empty promises. Then they ignore you utterly for a predetermined number of years until they need to legally ratify their tyranny once again.

The emphasis on the retained freedoms still allowed to you is the very problem that causes people to have to remind you that you are oppressed.

I'm not an anarchist, however nor am I an idiot. I know when I'm being fucked by the people uptop.

The fact you yourselves have not personally traded your freedom for law's theoretical protection does not exonerate you of blame or free you of the responsibility.

You seem to assume that because a law is in place it protects you.

[Robert]

Have you ever entered the UK or the real word? Yes, I've been to the UK and I admit you have too many laws and regulations. I'm sorry.


You are offered an array of puppets and made to choose between them based on empty promises. Then they ignore you utterly for a predetermined number of years until they need to legally ratify their tyranny once again.

Have you ever actually gone to see your own MP, sat across from him, and reasonably stated your case? Have you ever written him a letter? Have you considered running for Parliament yourself? How about mayor, alderman, town councilman, or whatever you call it?


The emphasis on the retained freedoms still allowed to you is the very problem that causes people to have to remind you that you are oppressed.

Oh, okay.


The fact you yourselves have not personally traded your freedom for law's theoretical protection does not exonerate you of blame or free you of the responsibility.
Oh, now it's my fault? I admit I would urge my MP if I lived there, which I fucking don't, as some would say, to ban crack cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. I know what they do to a community and in my opinion it's all bad. I don't care about marijuana or magic mushrooms. LSD I'm ambivalent about. I also prefer that you not walk nude in public parks where small children play, especially if you are in a manifest state of tumescence.


You seem to assume that because a law is in place it protects you.No. I assume that because a law is in place that your elected representatives voted to enact or continue it and that the majority, whose votes are as valuable as yours, are either happy with the status quo or should not complain about it. Their remedy is to elect other leaders or revolt if it becomes intolerable. And then there is civil disobedience, which has a price, but so does everything.

Please tell me in your next post that you will at least consider running for some kind of political office or tell me why you are legally disqualified from even trying.

[Bud Struggle]

Robert--a delightful series of posts!!!
:lol::lol::lol:

[Killfacer]

Personally i think Billy Bob's sounds like a shit hole. Who wants to go to a pub with a fucking mechanical bull in it? You Americans do not know how to drink.

[Robert]

Killfacer, it IS a shithole, but you would be the first one up on the bull. Yeeee haaaa!

[Bud Struggle]

Killfacer, it IS a shithole, but you would be the first one up on the bull. Yeeee haaaa!

These British are so "delecate!" :lol:

[Robert]

No denigration intended killfacer. I just think you'd enjoy yourself at Billy bobs. That's where all our fellow wage slaves party, after all.

If it proves too unrefined, I am sure the esteemed gentleman from Florida (TomK) could hook us up with some finer establishments in Miami Beach or Manhattan.

Am I right or am I right, Tommy?

[Bud Struggle]

No denigration intended killfacer. I just think you'd enjoy yourself at Billy bobs. That's where all our fellow wage slaves party, after all.

If it proves too unrefined, I am sure the esteemed gentleman from Florida (TomK) could hook us up with some finer establishments in Miami Beach or Manhattan.

Am I right or am I right, Tommy?

I personally am a drinker of the LOWER order. :lol:

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

RTG - I don't intend to run for any official office as I don't think of myself as qualifed and I don't beleive in representative democracy as a fair system of government at the very least not in the manner it is enacted in Britain.

In Britain you elect your choice of puppet based on who can be bothered to do the job and roughly what they might stand for, then they act exactly as they please ignoring public opinion for years on end. That is why laws get passed, because nobody who will actually suffer from these laws gets a say.

It doesn't matter where you fucking live you stupid fuck it is your fault the people under your legal system (or any place you may be's) are oppressed because you yourself are not revolting against the government that put the laws that crush your freedoms in place. This is perfectly fair as the fear of punishment and the wonderful joy of the danger of death for treason are less than ample inticements but still it doesn't change anything.

Yes I have met my MP on a number of occaisons, he's a dick. Shortly after meeting him I was sorely tempted to get myself legally disqualified by conviction of a violent crime.