Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Happiness! [Security]

26 (31%)

Freedom! [Liberty]

58 (69%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[Phmcw]

Unity is strength, strength bring freedom, then unity bring freedom.
Of course juxtaposing two aphorism proves nothing, but the idea is there.
By paying taxes and accepting enforcement of a resonable amount of law, you makes yourself free from the burden of insecurity, ignorance and disasers. Mostly.

[3]

True freedom would be the freedom to live without a government and give up many of the great things we have today.

Of course. And that's the point in discussing percieved freedoms - which I presume is some of what's going on right now; I haven't read the entire thread.

I take a largely converse view to Luke_Prowler. The further you're capable of climbing, the more you feel you're obliged to, and the further you fall. Having vastly limited boundaries is good, as it's then difficult to overstep oneself. This basically boils down to the old optimism/pessimism/adventurousness/security thing.

[Josephus]

It saddens me to see how many slaves and children frequent this board.

I happen to like having others think for myself, thank you very much.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I rather hope this is a joke.  Heh.

One does not joke about loyalty to the Party and Big Brother. 

Comrade Little has the right of it. Remember, Big Brother loves you very much.

[Grakelin]

True freedom would be the freedom to live without a government and give up many of the great things we have today.

Of course. And that's the point in discussing percieved freedoms - which I presume is some of what's going on right now; I haven't read the entire thread.

It's not a little thing, though. You don't just give up some money, or have to downgrade your car, or have to buy less video games, or whatever. You give up ALL your money, you get NO car, and you get NO video games. You spend your entire day hunting/growing food, working on your home (which won't be as nice as what you live in now, even if you are relatively poor by Western standards), and trying to stay warm. You don't get to answer "I choose Freedom, because then I can be Free to be Happy", because your life is going to go a certain way if you don't have somebody to at least partially organize you and your fellows.

[3]

Where did I suggest that it was a little thing? I may have brushed the point aside to some degree, but while the thread may have moved in the direction of an extreme binary state, you know very well that that's not the case nor necessarily ever should be/needs to be the case.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Actually, that "complete freedom" from the society contract is the definition of "anarchy". However, what most people forget is that anarchy is only stable when you are absolutely alone - the moment when there are two people, you will have a hierarchy developing. And since there is no social contract to protect the weak, anarchy is very prone to lead to tyranny and dictatorship of the strong.

Because of that, I do not consider "anarchy" genuinely "absolute freedom" as the individual is not able to protect their freedom 24h a day, 7 days a week all their life all by themselves. Thus, the maximum of personal freedom can only be obtained permanently by giving up some freedom to accept that society contract Grakelin correctly pointed out.

Deathworks

[Criptfeind]

That is why absolute freedom does not exist.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

See, I once had an idea of how to improve the social contract used between us and our government. The issue lies in that the contract is between the people and the government. They are differant entites, and this creates conflict. The will of the people is in a constant flux, changing to fit the times around us. The will of a government is just the opposite. A government is born when the ever changing will of the people, for just a moment in time, intersects with the will of a potental leader. The leader becomes a part or whole of a government, who will try to keep things as they are, for both its own benifit and/or to honestly protect and guide the people. But the will of the people will not stay as it was in the birth of said government. It moves on, as it always has. Some governments try to stop this. They mostly fail. When they do not, the will of the people will be broken, like in North Korea. So obviously, destroying the will of the people is not a good solution. Some governments, like the U.S.A, will attempt to change with the people. But this change is never fast enough, and only happens to a degree the government feels is safe to allow. Regardless of the actions taken, all governments are dying from this divide. Some take many centuries, others take weeks, but all governments die.

The solution is to find a way to find balance between the chaotic and weak, but ever changing, will of the people and the ordered and strong, but stagnant, will of the government. A way where there is enough change but also enough strength to protect the people while allowing what they wish in the way of law.

[3]

I would be greatly surprised if that hasn't been the objective of governments around the world for at least several decades now. It's certainly the way most I know of style themselves.

[HAMMERMILL]

You can have basically limitless freedom if you are at the top of the heirarchy and you are an exception to the law.

Anyways, ultimately the government is a reflection of the society as a whole and not so much as two seperate things. Governments don't last long if they don't have the consent of the governed to govern.

[Zironic]

I prefer freedom. However, I live in America and I am upper middle class. I constitute a very small minority among the world, thus the concept of me being happy over others is kind of grotesque. However, by no means of my own, their freedom has already been robbed to provide for my freedoms, thus I choose the choice that gives less harsh lessons.

[Grakelin]

Unless you or your parents are wealthy doctors and lawyers, you're not actually upper middle class. Middle Class refers to the Second Estate, which includes people with Ph. Ds, lawyers, doctors, etc. etc., whereas most of us are Working Class, the third Estate, which includes people like factory workers, and schoolteachers, and soldiers, and office workers. The term 'middle class' is used by politicians as a general 'catch-all' term which encompasses everybody as long as they aren't homeless or millionaires. I guess people don't like thinking they're on the bottom, either. If you live in suburbia, you're probably upper working class.

Source: A sociology Ph. D student told me.

[Zironic]

Unless you or your parents are wealthy doctors and lawyers, you're not actually upper middle class. Middle Class refers to the Second Estate, which includes people with Ph. Ds, lawyers, doctors, etc. etc., whereas most of us are Working Class, the third Estate, which includes people like factory workers, and schoolteachers, and soldiers, and office workers. The term 'middle class' is used by politicians as a general 'catch-all' term which encompasses everybody as long as they aren't homeless or millionaires. I guess people don't like thinking they're on the bottom, either. If you live in suburbia, you're probably upper working class.

Source: A sociology Ph. D student told me.

That's a little bit mute considering my parents are none of what you list.
You are forgetting a key job group called Engineers.

[Grakelin]

I didn't list every single job that ever existed in my post. You understand the point.

What sort of Engineers are your parents? Even with Ph. Ds, their payscale ranges from as low as $18 000, and some are valued by society more than others (not that they're not all valuable).

[Criptfeind]

What about CPAs this talk makes me wonder.