This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Freedom of Speech (Rights & Responsibilities)
- Hello all, i have a question for my assignment and i need help to figure it out.
- offer rate for Bsc Chemistry
- Hookup culture
- What do you need to and not need to memorise for Research Methods in psych?
- Remembrance Day . . . remembering what?
- people talking in the library.
- Oxford - Undergrad students A level grades
- How do i deny being bi when i actually am
- how to reference European Convention On Human rights
- I was caught dodging fare in London
- I am soooo done with uni
- Will I get prosecuted for fare evasion?
- ARU medicine apprenticeship information event
- NEA T-test
- LNAT
- Mr Everything English P2 Q2
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- Accom (for any uni)
- Higher English folio mark
Freedom
Quite simple: Why don't people en masse demand freedom, and why have they never done that so far in the history of the world (except the first few years of America)? There is no free country on the face of the earth.
Scroll to see replies
Rocious
We're mostly happy.
Happy to be a slave?
Because people fear anarchy. Nobody wants to become cavemen again, we want to be civilized.
We are slaves though, to an extent.
We are slaves though, to an extent.
Mr. Tinkertrain
Because people fear anarchy. Nobody wants to become cavemen again, we want to be civilized.
We are slaves though, to an extent.
We are slaves though, to an extent.
Well yes, we are slaves as soon as the birth certificate is signed.
But why do people fear their own freedom?
sabka7
they dont want to risk losing what they have already there is no guarantee of freedom. ever.
'No guarantee of freedom' We are born free, if people en masse demanded to be free, of course there would be freedom
silentrevolution
Happy to be a slave?
Yeah.
I support more liberal economic and social policies but really the idea of the government confiscating 40% of my income and trying to stop me from smoking weed just doesn't bother me that much. It's simply not in most people's nature to care a whole lot about this stuff when their lives are basically fine.
And anyway the government gets too liberal and someone else will just opress you or whatever.
numb3rb0y
Far too many people would rather have false safety than liberty.
I'm not talking about liberty here, but freedom.
Liberty is a grant from a ruler, that can be withdrawn.
Just like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
Freedom is what you are born with, the right to self-determination and self-rule.
People need to be ruled.
cpj1987
I'm happy as things are.
Take a look around the world. War, poverty, global crises, don’t you think something should change?
Queen Victoria
People need to be ruled.
When people are slaves, then the rulers will do as they please, the only regard being whether their slaves work properly and generate them money.
Rocious
Yeah.
I support more liberal economic and social policies but really the idea of the government confiscating 40% of my income and trying to stop me from smoking weed just doesn't bother me that much. It's simply not in most people's nature to care a whole lot about this stuff when their lives are basically fine.
And anyway the government gets too liberal and someone else will just oppress you or whatever.
I support more liberal economic and social policies but really the idea of the government confiscating 40% of my income and trying to stop me from smoking weed just doesn't bother me that much. It's simply not in most people's nature to care a whole lot about this stuff when their lives are basically fine.
And anyway the government gets too liberal and someone else will just oppress you or whatever.
Who gave the power to a state to make laws, or more accurately, policies? Answer, we did. Why? The government has no right to income, tax is voluntary, and the state tricks people into paying. The argument that ‘someone else will just oppress you’ highlights that in the current state we are being oppressed. Associated with this is pessimism that it will always be so.
When people are free, they respect each other and people demand and stand up for their rights. My model would be what America was (in terms of freedom, not other concerns like slavery etc.) before intervention from the enemy they were fleeing.
But one persons absolute freedom can be of detriment to anothers.
Id rather live in a society where we have the degree of freedom that most of use already have and enjoy than one in which there were absolute freedom for some resulting in the suffering or removal of the rights of others.
Its all very well and good a concept under the assumption that everyone could live peacefully and happily and so on, but the reality would be entirely different I feel. There is always someone who wants to rule the world and have absolute control. Eventually things would get to a point where a ruler would be welcomed under the promise of restoring order, or a ruler would just take control and appoint themselves.
Id rather live in a society where we have the degree of freedom that most of use already have and enjoy than one in which there were absolute freedom for some resulting in the suffering or removal of the rights of others.
Its all very well and good a concept under the assumption that everyone could live peacefully and happily and so on, but the reality would be entirely different I feel. There is always someone who wants to rule the world and have absolute control. Eventually things would get to a point where a ruler would be welcomed under the promise of restoring order, or a ruler would just take control and appoint themselves.
cpj1987
Of course, but I assumed from your OP you were simply questioning why people didn't demand their own freedom; not why people don't do more to change the world.
The world is in its state because of the lack of freedom. A world scale demand for freedom, and a respect for each others' right to it will instantly change the world.
People fight wars to because they believe that it will defend their liberties. The pessimism that people cannot govern themselves, leads power hungry people to seize power. If you yourself cannot govern yourself, how can you expect someone else to?
timetokill
But one persons absolute freedom can be of detriment to anothers.
Id rather live in a society where we have the degree of freedom that most of use already have and enjoy than one in which there were absolute freedom for some resulting in the suffering or removal of the rights of others.
Its all very well and good a concept under the assumption that everyone could live peacefully and happily and so on, but the reality would be entirely different I feel. There is always someone who wants to rule the world and have absolute control. Eventually things would get to a point where a ruler would be welcomed under the promise of restoring order, or a ruler would just take control and appoint themselves.
Id rather live in a society where we have the degree of freedom that most of use already have and enjoy than one in which there were absolute freedom for some resulting in the suffering or removal of the rights of others.
Its all very well and good a concept under the assumption that everyone could live peacefully and happily and so on, but the reality would be entirely different I feel. There is always someone who wants to rule the world and have absolute control. Eventually things would get to a point where a ruler would be welcomed under the promise of restoring order, or a ruler would just take control and appoint themselves.
There is no degree of freedom, you either are free or you are a slave. There are degrees given of liberty, but these are open to be withdrawn at any time – just look at what government does. It can pass and take back almost anything it wants to.
A ruler can only control with the consent (indirect or direct) of the governed.
The people want other people’s freedom, and to rule are psychologically sick, and if you look at most of our leaders – pathological. There may be someone who want absolute control, but if people en masse demanded freedom, this would be impossible.
Ruling yourself is effort enough for one person, and when you do that, you respect other people in their right to do the same.
silentrevolution
I'm not talking about liberty here, but freedom.
Liberty is a grant from a ruler, that can be withdrawn.
Just like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
Freedom is what you are born with, the right to self-determination and self-rule.
Liberty is a grant from a ruler, that can be withdrawn.
Just like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
Freedom is what you are born with, the right to self-determination and self-rule.
Where are you getting that definition? Liberty as a political and philosophical concept is necessarily somewhat nebulous, but it's most definitely not distinct from from freedom in that the former is innate and the latter gifted by tyrants. In fact, it's largely synonymous with freedom. If what you are suggesting is true, then how can there be libertarian anarchists?
silentrevolution
The world is in its state because of the lack of freedom. A world scale demand for freedom, and a respect for each others' right to it will instantly change the world.
People fight wars to because they believe that it will defend their liberties. The pessimism that people cannot govern themselves, leads power hungry people to seize power. If you yourself cannot govern yourself, how can you expect someone else to?
People fight wars to because they believe that it will defend their liberties. The pessimism that people cannot govern themselves, leads power hungry people to seize power. If you yourself cannot govern yourself, how can you expect someone else to?
As I said, on a worldwide scale perhaps there's reason to be concerned; but being English I'm happy with the status quo here.
numb3rb0y
Where are you getting that definition? Liberty as a political and philosophical concept is necessarily somewhat nebulous, but it's most definitely not distinct from from freedom in that the former is innate and the latter gifted by tyrants. In fact, it's largely synonymous with freedom. If what you are suggesting is true, then how can there be libertarian anarchists?
I understand freedom as an innate state, something you are born with.
But politically speaking: 'Political freedom is the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression. The members of a free society would have full dominion over their public and private lives. The opposite of a free society would be a totalitarian state, which highly restricts political freedom in order to regulate almost every aspect of behavior. In this sense ‘freedom’ refers solely to the relation of humans to other humans, and the only infringement on it is coercion by humans.' (Wikipedia)
We need to understand what meaning rulers attach to liberty. Remember philosophers like Rosseau, Mill and especially John Locke formed this concept of liberty that the rulers use.
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
* Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter 1
The legal definition of society is VERY interesting, in terms of what Rosseau calls the social contract.
Whilst I understand the basis of what you are saying I think you have a very idealogical viewpoint of how things would ultimatly pan out.
If one psychologically sick person (as you call it) is seen to be taking control, or doing/achieving what they want by means other than the norm (ie respecting others and their rights) then its likely to spark a chain reaction, even amongst the psychologically sound.
You only have to look at small everyday examples within day to day life to see this first hand. The sad reality is that within society its still very dog eat dog, so if the person going against the norm is seen to be getting ahead others will follow- especially if no boundaries or concrete rules regarding what is or isnt acceptable are in place.
Collectively people seem to respond better and act as 'better human beings' when there are boundaries, rules and regulations. The fact that rules etc are in place for most is deterrant enough to stop them from acting out or in a way that could be seen as unacceptable.
If one psychologically sick person (as you call it) is seen to be taking control, or doing/achieving what they want by means other than the norm (ie respecting others and their rights) then its likely to spark a chain reaction, even amongst the psychologically sound.
You only have to look at small everyday examples within day to day life to see this first hand. The sad reality is that within society its still very dog eat dog, so if the person going against the norm is seen to be getting ahead others will follow- especially if no boundaries or concrete rules regarding what is or isnt acceptable are in place.
Collectively people seem to respond better and act as 'better human beings' when there are boundaries, rules and regulations. The fact that rules etc are in place for most is deterrant enough to stop them from acting out or in a way that could be seen as unacceptable.
Related discussions
- Freedom of Speech (Rights & Responsibilities)
- Hello all, i have a question for my assignment and i need help to figure it out.
- offer rate for Bsc Chemistry
- Hookup culture
- What do you need to and not need to memorise for Research Methods in psych?
- Remembrance Day . . . remembering what?
- people talking in the library.
- Oxford - Undergrad students A level grades
- How do i deny being bi when i actually am
- how to reference European Convention On Human rights
- I was caught dodging fare in London
- I am soooo done with uni
- Will I get prosecuted for fare evasion?
- ARU medicine apprenticeship information event
- NEA T-test
- LNAT
- Mr Everything English P2 Q2
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- Accom (for any uni)
- Higher English folio mark
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
