What is LIBERTY?

[Denarius]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Somalia doesn't count, and Mexico isn't anarchic. There are atrocities, war, misery, and violence in every society. Government or no.

There is no reason to think that anarchy would be especially prone to this, or especially resistent to it either.

Dystopias are every bit the fiction of utopias, but what they represent is present at all times in every society.

I have faith that utilitarianism and/or ethical hedonism will win out. Most people don't want to be miserable.

[DanieMarie]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

DM: What you are describing is civilized society, not government. There's some anarchists who define it as every man for himself, but most don't. Or at least the one's I know don't.

Just because it's lawless does not mean that anything goes, people govern themselves well enough to ensure that.

My point is, that in a civilized society you eventually end up with government. We need leaders, and either someone will rise to the occasion (and then it's our best guess whether or not they have our best interests at heart) and take the power, or we can choose from amongst ourselves. We end up with government because, as our groups grow, we need more complicated systems of organizing leadership.

It's a nice idea that we could govern ourselves, but this rests on the idea that everyone is capable of following this system. Most people are sheep and need to follow someone. I feel like anarchy is like communism...nice ideas but they don't work in real life.

PS maybe it's because I live in former East Germany, which has seen 2 ridiculously horrible regimes, but I have NO faith in people. I do NOT want to see us governing ourselves. Most people are barely able to understand simple finance and basic economics. I don't think most people are horrible by nature or want suffering, but if learning the history of this place has taught me anything, it's that most people will just go with whatever the status quo is. A LOT of people don't particularly care what's going on. I want to see good leaders, who have been elected and are still accountable to the people who elected them, otherwise there's way too much room for abuse. I want to see a strong network of social programs but a reasonable amount of private business and trade. Which is pretty much what we have. I LOVE capitalism. It's served me well enough. It has its flaws and I don't think we should stop trying to patch up those flaws (for example, I'm not a fan of free-market capitalism by any means), but I think it's a system that works just fine overall.

Maybe in the US it's harder to believe in democracy because you have a 2 party system? I'd find it disheartening....here we have both a multi-party and a representational system, so you not only have more choices, but your vote DOES count. It means that sometimes crazy things happen, like the Pirate Party winning almost 9% and therefore getting that much of the representational seats, but at least people feel like they have a voice. Even then though, a lot of people still don't vote, because of what I said above...most people just go along with whatever and are super apathetic. We have extremists here from many directions but most of them are effing morons (stop graffitiing my building, you jackasses).

[Denarius]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

I still don't see why governments are necessary for what you are describing. I have no problem with leaders or authority, or even government for the most part.

My issues with government:

Bureaucracy, voter apathy, the fact that we elect based on charisma and wealth rather than actual merit, majoritarianism, oligarchism, corruption.. I can name more.

More complex does not mean better. Why can't we have simple forms of government?

[B. de Corbin]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Whatever you call it, freedom, liberty, etc., it all requires a sense of RESPONSIBILITY and a shared common good. Sadly that is what the world is sorely lacking today. The concept of liberty and of being a "free people" has been bastardized into a "I'll do whatever I want and the hell with everyone else" mentality. JMHO

So... In order to have liberty, I also have to share your belief in social responsibility, and shared common good?

Could you describe these things in clear terms so I will know what's in the package you're selling?

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

So... In order to have liberty, I also have to share your belief in social responsibility, and shared common good?

Could you describe these things in clear terms so I will know what's in the package you're selling?

I'm not "selling" anything. It's Just My Humble Opinion. As in:
Within a family group there are usually parameters of acceptable behavior. Members are free to act, provided their behavior remains within those parameters. Same for organizations, countries, etc. When you start having people exhibiting out-of-parameter behaviors, and the group redefines to accept them, you lose the bond of the group at some point.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Yes, I have no problem with that.

But the terms "social responsibility" and "shared common good" are ambiguous. I can't tell what you mean until the terms are defined.

Compare, for instance, what a Nazi might mean by these terms, and what a Buddhist monk might mean by these terms.

Both of them, when they use those terms are "selling" a concept by using words charged with positive feelings to promote their social ideas. I want to know what social ideas are being promoted before I agree with them.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Compare, for instance, what a Nazi might mean by these terms, and what a Buddhist monk might mean by these terms.

And that's where the world goes crazy. You have distinct groups with radically different ideologies trying to coexist in the same space. I don't know the solution for that. It's easy to say "live and let live" but some don't believe in that!

[B. de Corbin]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

And that's where the world goes crazy. You have distinct groups with radically different ideologies trying to coexist in the same space. I don't know the solution for that. It's easy to say "live and let live" but some don't believe in that!

Exactly! I don't know you real well, but, from what I do know, I'd imagine that we have at least some ideas in common - but, until I know what you mean by those terms, I can't know whether I agree with you on that idea or not. So I ask.

Only a fool agrees to ambiguous statements without asking for clarification - nobody, for instance, would REALLY agree to a law that says "it is illegal to do something stupid." LOL - you'd want to know what they mean by "stupid," wouldn't you?

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

nobody, for instance, would REALLY agree to a law that says "it is illegal to do something stupid."

Nah, only a stupid person would agree to that!!! LMAO

Srsly, it's really hard to try & find any common ground for all of humanity (on a moral/behavioral level). I mean, we all need air, food, water, etc., but after that it's a crapshoot. And then you have all these dictatorial groups saying THEIR way is the BEST, and then you get war & all that nasty kinda stuff. Given the very nature of human nature, 100% "individual liberty" practically guarantees chaos, I guess....

[DanieMarie]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

I still don't see why governments are necessary for what you are describing. I have no problem with leaders or authority, or even government for the most part.

My issues with government:

Bureaucracy, voter apathy, the fact that we elect based on charisma and wealth rather than actual merit, majoritarianism, oligarchism, corruption.. I can name more.

More complex does not mean better. Why can't we have simple forms of government?

I'm with you there, but I don't think -having- a government is the problem, it's largely to do with the people and how apathetic they are (which I did say before as well). I don't think not having a government is at all the answer. I think a lack of an organised and elected government would only further these problems and leave the door open for abuse. History is ripe with examples. Just thumb through pretty much anywhere before the 20th Century (and several places after) after a collapse of political power or even after a peoples revolution.

And as much as I'm a fan of federal social systems I hate bureaucracy too. I moved from Canada to Germany and Canada has soooooo much less of it (seriously if you hate it, never, ever move to Germany). It's inefficient and wastes money that despite being the strongest economy in Europe, this country just does not have. I do like our voting system though. It's much different from a lot of other parliamentary systems. You cast 2 votes, one for a direct representative for your district and one for a party. The candidate with the most votes represents the district, but the second vote is counted proportionally and that number of seats gets in government. People still base votes on image but it's more about party image (how else would Angela Merkel be chancellor?)

[B. de Corbin]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

Srsly, it's really hard to try & find any common ground for all of humanity (on a moral/behavioral level). I mean, we all need air, food, water, etc., but after that it's a crapshoot. And then you have all these dictatorial groups saying THEIR way is the BEST, and then you get war & all that nasty kinda stuff. Given the very nature of human nature, 100% "individual liberty" practically guarantees chaos, I guess....

That is a problem, and a serious one. I think we all know how much of our "morality" has been imposed on us by people with a "Christian" morality - everything from sex outside of marriage is a no - no to two people of the same sex aren't allowed to be in love. We chafe under a morality imposed on us by others, and, by the same token, others would chafe if we (I or you) imposed our morality on them.

BUT!!!!

On the other hand, there do have to be some kind of limits to what is acceptable in any society - I like it that nobody is allowed to stake out a claim and plow up a field on my back acreage, although there are (as hard to believe as it is) people who believe that private ownership of land is immoral.

The best solution I can come up with is this:

Determine the absolute outside limits which we are willing to accept, and encode it in law. Make only the laws you absolutely need to keep people from ripping out each other's throats - but no more! and, after that, stand back and let each person decide for his or her self what is and is not morally correct.

That explains the tone with which I first responded to you - YOU want ME to do WHAT????

[Denarius]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

PS maybe it's because I live in former East Germany, which has seen 2 ridiculously horrible regimes, but I have NO faith in people. I do NOT want to see us governing ourselves. Most people are barely able to understand simple finance and basic economics. I don't think most people are horrible by nature or want suffering, but if learning the history of this place has taught me anything, it's that most people will just go with whatever the status quo is. A LOT of people don't particularly care what's going on. I want to see good leaders, who have been elected and are still accountable to the people who elected them, otherwise there's way too much room for abuse.

You state that you have no faith in people, yet the system you describe is based entirely on people. If you truly believed us to not be able to govern ourselves, then you need to completely divorce the human element from government.

Collectively, people are apathetic and neutral. A teeming mass of grey. People just tend to fall in line. This is good, it irons out extremes. The herd does not accept outliers.

INDIVIDUALS can be good or evil, right or wrong, black or white, democrat or republican. The collective is always grey. This grey can be dark or light depending on the individuals who are leading and have led it. The collective is tempered towards something, by societal fluctuations which are caused by individuality.

Societies are led astray by history books, written by individuals about individual nations. Ideologies, formed by individuals. We vote, individually, for individuals. Our individual countries are led by individuals, with individual thoughts and individual concerns...

Say one of these individuals has a bad day, this will affect his or her judgement. His or her prejudices will affect his or her policies. If the country was led by a collective none of that would be an issue, that leader would just fall in line with the other leaders.

United we stand, divided we fall.

[DanieMarie]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

I guess I should specify. I don't have faith in people not to screw it up without some sort of guidelines. Our electoral and government systems are based on people, but they have checks and balances as well (since Hitler was elected and so royally managed to ruin everything). I guess what I have the least faith in people to govern themselves with is stuff like managing health care and education and especially economics and trade, and a lot of other things that involve expert knowledge that most people don't have (this is also why I hate referendums on such matters, such as the HST referendum in BC). I think it's far better to have people who actually know about these things in charge, but these people are more accountable if they have to answer to us as well. I guess if you don't believe in public health care and stuff like that maybe it's easier to let go of the idea of federal bodies managing this stuff, but I do.

As for running the country by a collective, I still fail to see how that is NOT a government of some form. All you did was change the name.

[Denarius]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

These guidelines were made by people, they didn't just descend form on high. I don't trust these gudelines, because ultimately they're just ideas that came from the minds of people and people are flawed.

Even if the rules weren't there, people would still not stand for injustice. Even if what Hitler did was perfectly legal within his country, which it might have been I'm not a legal historian, people are still talking about it as the atrocity it was.

Not because he was naughty and broke a rule, but because what he did was unnacceptable to common sensibilities.

Government is just an unnecessary middle man and a lot of unnecessary rules: Senseless Bureaucracy at its finest.

People don't need to govern their economy or trade, that's what experts are for. People shouldn't be able to vote on economic matters unless they have credentials.

NASA doesn't let the general public vote on flight trajectories or wing design. If they did there would be a lot more X-wings and they'd be doing nothing but barrel rolls.

[DanieMarie]

Re: What is LIBERTY?

But I still fail to see how you expect to manage public health care, education and trade without some sort of government.

You mention NASA but this is also a government-run body.