Does Anybody In The West Still Want To Be Free?
Growing up in America, one kind of assumes that the default setting is that people (more than anything) desire to be free. I would imagine that most of us in the United States (and in the West) thought that everybody would want to live in a "free country" if they could. But maybe that's not really the case. Maybe most people are just as happy to live under a set of authoritarian edicts as long as they can have access to things like cheap junk food, lightening quick internet, 2-day free shipping, and free pornography, you know, the essentials of life.
As we devolve into a totalitarianism characterized by intolerance, divisiveness, and massive propaganda/ignorance, you just have to wonder whether the desire to be free has been selected out of Western people.
Does anybody in the West still want to be free?
As we devolve into a totalitarianism characterized by intolerance, divisiveness, and massive propaganda/ignorance, you just have to wonder whether the desire to be free has been selected out of Western people.
Does anybody in the West still want to be free?
Comments (141)
I want to be free but with more limits in we know in the West as “modern society” I would sound totalitarian but in important things as voting or internet access should not be accessible for everyone.
When these are free and easy to join they end up being flawed. Here in Spain you can vote with just 18 years old. I think it is not useful because a teenager doesn’t know how a State or government works so they will vote whatever they were taught to previously. I consider raise the age at 25 at least.
Internet era is the same and many powerful entities use it just to brainwash people with fake news. Social media as Twitter or Facebook have not a democratic criteria because do not put basic rules of “truths” neither transparency. It is free access so lit any kind of person can join and write whatever they want. It is dangerous and drives to misunderstandings.
I would say these are good inventions but somehow they need to be more restricted.
One of my biggest worries is that we are are on the verge of totalitarianism and I think that it may be a completely unbearable form of existence. I am concerned that all this time of social restrictions is going to make it that much easier to usher in totalitarian regimes because people are becoming used to not being allowed to do hardly anything at all.
The way I have seen life in England in the last few weeks has worried me. People are sitting on steps of shops which are shut, just to eat, like vagrants, because they are not allowed to go inside any public places apart from supermarkets. I was at King's Cross station yesterday and, it was patrolled by police who were walking around carrying machine guns. it felt like an entirely different city to the one of a year ago. I am not sure that it is about the pandemic, or if it is the rise of a totalitarian state. Honestly, I am uncertain what is going to happen in the near future, but I do feel very fearful of what may be coming, but I hope that my fears don't come true.
Extra: I realise that you are talking about the internet, and it appears that we are free but I think that there are some ways we are being tracked when we are online. But, of course, there are so many people to be monitored.
I wager such a sentiment is the necessary result of comfort. People are too busy enjoying their rights to want to fight for them, perhaps forgetting the hard-fought battles required to bring them into reality. Hopefully the recent authoritarian takeovers of entire societies will jog their memory.
Mostly those (not only) "in the West" systemically not free (i.e. alienated by exploitation and/or discrimination) "want be free" – free themselves – from status quo 'systems of control' (re: hegemonic, neoliberal, military-police-prison-pharma-industrial complexes). Too many also do not "want" others to be(come) free either out of a paranoiac zerosum mindset or a deeply indoctrinated inferiority-complex for which some have militarized themselves & scapegoat others to overcompensate for their projected (self)fears-hatreds. Oligarchic 'divide & conquor' strategems are still working (aided & abetted by Stockholm syndromed, reactionary, populist mobs) and accelerating.
Your question is directed much more towards the historical figure of humanity, than towards something intrinsically individual.
We have reached the point where our abstract-moral principles and values are no longer balanced with our technological advances. Given that, we enter decadence, because we have the means, but we don't have the right morals to use those same means.
The only result of a fragile and chaotic relationship like this, is collapse.
Freedom is no longer discussed by the sake of freedom, but for the sake of power.
Quoting 180 Proof
You make a good point. So how should we view the freedom of the people who control the "status quo systems" you mention?
The 'loss of freedom' will, and does, come from unexpected sources. Google, Facebook, Amazon, et al are much more likely to compromise personal freedom than the Centers for Disease Control or the police. How? Commercial Internet companies make a great deal of money by manipulating people through their operating algorithms and content. Tracking your clicks and mouse moves, "scraping" information off the pictures we post, the texts we write, the things we buy, the things we watch (or do not watch) enables companies to profile, and manipulate us on ever deeper levels.
Years before many of us here were born, Marshall McLuhan observed that "the medium is the message". He was talking about television; the internet had not been invented yet. However, the principal applies as much to the internet as television.
The medium of the internet is no more liberating than television was/is--I'd say even less so. Television is much more a mass medium than the internet, which can be individualized by those background algorithms--toward purposes we are mostly not consciously aware of. That's how we get sucked in.
Exactly!
It has often been suggested that the great lesson of the 20th century was that the most efficacious method of controlling populations was not through coercion ala the USSR, Nazi Germany, or Communist China, but instead, by giving people EXACTLY what they desire.
IOW, people will gladly trade their freedoms for perceived securities. Let's consider pornography (sexual security?) as an example. I am a guy, I get it, but how it is possible that society allowed free access to pretty much EVERYBODY? Are people out of their f****** minds! Doesn't anybody care? And I could possibly understand how guys could "overlook" this idiocy, but how about women? Why haven't women been saying anything about it?
You can go down a very long laundry list of absolutely bizarre things that have been going on and almost nobody seems to care. Could the schools get any worse? Does anybody in public life ever tell the truth anymore? Could political polarity be any worse? Could the fact that the health care system is corrupt beyond your wildest dreams be any more evident? So on and on and on...
People need to do some think'in...
No doubt a corollary of William Burrough's "junk equation" (à la Nietzsche's decadence, Adorno's culture industry, Arendt's banality, Deleuze-Guattari's desiring-machines, Chomsky-Herman's manufactured consensus or Žižek's ideology).
John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The dominating need in the West is the struggle for prestige. Only a moral and religious people can provide values which contend with the dominating need for prestige. The descent into secularism must invite tyranny in the attempt to keep the peace; the peace of slavery.
The problem with these sources are that we enter into relationships with them voluntarily. One need not use Google or Facebook, whereas we see what happens if you do not comply with police or government. So I cannot see how these entities can be a source of any denials of freedom, let alone anything on par with those who possess the monopoly on violence.
Yes. There ARE good schools with good students getting a good education. These schools produce the next generation of cadre that the ruling class needs to keep society functioning in the desired manner. Maybe 20% of American students attend these (usually suburban) schools.
Yes, there are some fairly good schools left, and a lot of schools that have won the race to the bottom. That's OK because the students attending the crappy schools were never going to be very useful, anyway, except as consumers -- which they'll do well as.
Quoting synthesis
Yes, Somebody, somewhere, is telling the truth in public. Why do you expect people in power to speak the truths that would probably result in their not being in power any more?
Quoting synthesis
Oh yes, much worse. Think Germany in the 1920s-1930s. Bloody street fighting between Communists and Nazis was a regular and frequent occurrence. @Go Reds, Smash State! The Communists as well as the less radical, centrist parties were brutally suppressed as soon as the Nazis took power in early 1933. The recent storming of the US capital building was very widely condemned by both sides of the shallow groove that marks the shallow political divide.
The US doesn't really have much polarity -- we are a unipolar political system, the two poles are both capitalist.
We could, we should have more polarity -- workers of the United States, Unite -- then revolt. We have a small amount to lose, and a lot more to gain.
Quoting synthesis
Yes, the corruption could / should be much, much more evident than it is.
True enough, one does not need to use Google, Facebook, Amazon, et al. It's also the case that the operation of these extremely large corporations is only visible on the front end -- our computer screens. The algorithms, scraping and sale of data, massive profiling (for various and sundry purposes), and so on is not at all visible, let alone not obvious. Check out SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM by S. Zuboff - it's on YouTube -- another giant social media operator, but Zuboff is quite enlightening.
The police are the hard fist; most of the tracking, profiling, data scraping -- all that back-office monitoring -- is the soft fish.
FOR EXAMPLE: What do back office companies do with the data they scrape off of the zillions of pictures posted on facebook (and identified by FB users)? Likely, that information goes into the construction of facial recognition systems--something that has definitely hard, as well as soft, fist uses.
Target Corporation figured out how to tell which women were in early pregnancies by studying changes in purchase patterns. The women's changes were not dramatic -- they started buying more items like hand cleaners and unscented soap. Later on, they started buying baby products. Ah ha -- more unscented soap in June, baby products in December! An opportunity to become the mother's and baby's primary supplier.
That in itself may not be tyrannical (it IS manipulative) but suppose there are changes in run-of- the-mill purchases that predict a right- or left- shift in political views? Maybe crypto-nazis buy more canned peas and plastic containers 9 months before they start posting on a Proud Boys site. Maybe crypto socialists start buying fresh organic vegetables and white socks 5 months before they subscribe to The Militant and start spouting theory from Leon Trotsky.
Yeah.
I would maintain that those going to the "good" school and are running the place are absolute idiots. I don't care if they aced every test since kindergarten, they are almost all fools.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I just figured that somebody might want to sleep well at night.
Quoting Bitter Crank
BC, what's with all this anti-capitalist bullshit? Do you believe that all of this just started at the dawn of capitalism? Life before capitalism was MUCH worse for the average dude. It was brutal. And I know, they didn't do communism/socialism right everywhere it has been a complete disaster (which is everywhere its been tried).
Quoting Bitter Crank
How is that possible?
There is, of course, no shortage of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels. Plenty of absolute idiots, and fools, too. You are focussing on the right side of the distribution of goodness and intelligence--out in the territory of Trump, Putin and Balsinaro; the robber barons; Mark Z. and Jeff B. The Normal Distribution will not be mocked. Most people are in the middle--neither rotten nor perfect. Then there are the people on the left side of the distribution who are unusually competent, kind and decent people. The distribution is skewed to the left -- there are more very decent people then rotten mafiosi.
Quoting synthesis
I've been anti-capitalist since October 28th, 1982. Prior to that I was merely unenthusiastic.
How well is capitalism working out for you? Don't like the state? Marx didn't either, He called the state 'a committee to organize the affairs of rich people'. You are free in America insofar as you obey.
Here's a communist joke:
Comrade A: "After the revolution, there will be enough strawberries for all!"
Comrade B: "But comrade, I don't like strawberries."
Comrade A: "After the revolution, you WILL like strawberries."
Large organizations, be they states or corporations, on down to small non-profits, are controlling and repressive by their nature. People don't like to be controlled. I don't either. I want neither the state nor the corporation telling me what to do. I too want to be free.
But wake up: There can be no great individual freedom in the kinds of states and workplaces we exist in.
Quoting synthesis
Ah well, publish the contracts between insurers and providers (hospitals, clinics, pharmacies Medicare/Medicaid, etc.). Here's a prime example: Big Pharma corrupted enough congress people (men and women both) to get a law passed forbidding Medicare/Medicaid from negotiating drug prices. Unconscionable.
Quite true. Sustaining liberty in society requires the voluntary adoption of its citizens of essential obligations. If they don't, then it is up to the government. Is it a good idea?
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Unfortunately it does seem that America is destined to learn the hard way.
I think people's nature is to pursue what they lack. Like the lawn is always greener on the other side, and that applies to freedom as well. Perhaps people in the West have lived too freely, too long without knowing the dangers authoritarian control. So they idealize it with rose-colored glasses. I see similar things happen when people picture nature, or living "simply in the olden days" to name a few, when these were much more brutal in many respects in magnitudes that are hard to imagine for us in the west.
I love it! I can't tell if it's bait or true. I suppose to some, gaining freedom is the same as losing security. The security of not having to take responsibility for one's actions.
Some ppl only learned who Picasso was when they read a news article that told of one of his paintings selling for a record umpteen-million dollars. Culture becomes important when it generates money. I doubt they ever learned who Diogenes was.
That’s why Trump was elected in the first place: independent voters decided he would be better at providing them the comforts and securities they wanted...just because of his wealthy persona.
What does this have to do with the OP? Everything. What a ppl values is what guides it. When money guides it, it does so at the expense (no pun intended) of everything else. That includes morality. If the porn industry generates enough money it is viewed as heroic (Larry Flynt), or respectable (Hugh Hefner). And the music industry gets a free ride too for the same reason.
When we become a ppl that values money above all else, we sacrifice everything else for it...including our freedom...not to mention our morals. Then we are at the mercy of those few who have the money and use it to control the government. We are not a democracy. We are an oligarchy.
Do you have an example in mind?
It generates money and then marketing. Picasso is more famous than Diogenes because there are a lot of commercial interests of rich people flowing around.
This exactly happens when we are speaking about other marketing culture stuff: Mona Lisa. We all know is a Da Vinci paint but it is not his best work... But somehow it provides a lot of marketing and money. It is easy to see around internet the image and "memes" about it.
I also bet, as you said, those don't even know who is Francisco de Goya and the "black paintings" which are one of the most important works in art history.
So yes... Sadly in nowadays an art work depends of how the dictatorship of social media give them the accurate reflection or marketing.
It's the great post-modern theorist Kris Kristofferson.
Nice line BC! Was it not Wittgenstein who quipped that serious philosophy could be written entirely in jokes?
I think referring to what the US have right now as totalitarianism is a symptom of lost faith in your democratic system. I’m not sure if you quite realise what totalitarianism really amounts to. What you’re experiencing is a sense of lost freedoms, which is understandable in the current circumstances. But it’s not totalitarianism, by any stretch. The US appear to have a dichotomous perspective of the world: black or white, red or blue, left or right, freedom or totalitarianism, all or nothing, etc. In my view, it’s this general approach that needs to be examined...
Freedom from what?
Freedom to do what?
Step by step. The last thing you want to do to go backwards.
Problem is there are so many people who just don't seem to care very much about this sort of thing. They will accept whatever comes down the pike. Those who truly care about (anything) are few and far between, a big problem in times like these.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That's just the "in your face" stuff (drug cartels). The more insidious undertaking was how the professions themselves were taken over by corporations and providers became willing dupes in the game of how do we separate as much money from patients as is possible. Believe me, every doctor has known what's been going on since the early 80's (or sooner if they were paying attention).
Systems works by creating fear, then dependency, and your freedom is gone.
Risking security is entire purpose of being free.
Everybody has to figure that out for themselves. Imagine figuring out what you need to do all by yourself!
American ideals offer the freedom to strive to become human
Thomas Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”
The state is a unique entity in that it both secures freedom for its citizens while (at the same time) being its biggest threat.
The state is capable of the former (working in the interests of its citizens) only when small enough to not turn the tables as it surely does when it becomes large enough and consumes its masters.
There are many things that are quite totalitarian about the U.S., e..g., international adventures where this country has exploited its military advantages (having military influence in 150 countries) as well as what the U.S. has done with the global economy (it's trashing of the monetary system and using this financial leverage to secure interests).
This same power has been turned inward, as well, as not only have various freedoms been attenuated over the past decades but the the economic sanctions levied on the middle class in this country from the 70's forward (e.g., financialization, out-sourcing of manufacturing jobs, and monetary manipulation) has been quite totalitarian.
Instead of some stereotypical Latin American drug lord in control, we have instead a cadre of bankers, corporate interests, politicians, and the media banging the same drum.
Every time someone mentions the symptoms of the decay and collapse of secular society in this historical cycle, I only regret to know that we - humanity - have caused this twice in the past - the Bronze Age and the Classical Age - and we do not we seem to learn... Maybe we need collapse as much as birth.
I do not think this reaction is so strange. After all, once freedoms are lost, one also becomes painfully aware that it is not within their own power to simply take them back, and that "the powers that be" have very little interest in ever returning them.
Losing freedom is a gradual process. Gaining it, usually the result of a bloody revolution against a tyrannical oppressor.
So when people call the US totalitarian, they're essentially just looking ahead.
Most people are not / will not be intellectuals; most people are not / will not be rebels--political deviants. Most people are not engaged in philosophical discussions. This is so now, and as far as I can tell, always has been. Most people are now, and always have been, engaged with life as they know it. They are not stupid clods.
40+ years ago, I was interested in reading and applying anarchist writers like Emma Goldman (1869-1940); the writings from the IWW - Industrial Workers of the World; Marx's Manifesto; the Catholic Worker's founder, Dorothy Day (1897-1980). There are, here and there, other individuals (or very small groups) who are interested in this sort of stuff. I found it quite liberatory and motivating, and so have others.
One of the consequences of political deviation is that if an individual exercises their new-found interest, they are likely to become economically side-lined, which means a declining or flat income. Most political deviants are broke -- poor, economically precarious. I compromised enough to stay employed to keep food on the table and a roof over my head, but had I followed the typical upward path, I'd have been economically better off.
The United States has an extremely stingy safety net. Most people recognize that fact -- implicitly if not explicitly. If they want to eat and be housed, and raise their children, they understand what is expected of them.
There is a an anarchist / radical bookstore in Minneapolis that has, somehow survived for 50 years, or so. It has mostly been supported by donations. Its small circle of friends and supporters and meeting participants are a rag-tag bunch of politically deviant intellectuals types. Few and far between.
I'll volunteer for the job, if nobody else is in line for it.
Show me a human who is not a human. Be the person free or not free, from this or that or the other thing, or to do this or that or the other thing. Just simply show a human who is not a human.
Not to mention ancient Rome, Athens, The RC Inquisition and Autodafe, the Spanish and Portuguese and English and French near annihilation of the Native American Population, the Indian Caste System, Quantanimo Bay, the Bay of Pigs, the Bay of Loose Diarrhea, the Bay of Aborted Feti, the Bay of Mangled Car Wrecks with children cut in half... etc.
Human nature conquers human-nature-wannabe, and that's why god that has been created by man has been made dead by man.
This is so because man has realized that not even god can force humans to act the way CERTAIN humans want to control everyone else to act that SPECIFIC way that they envision would make a better world.
Moralists: god-worshipping or secularists, are both control freaks, who cite morals when their ammunition to control others has gone thin.
I don't think the OP had you in mind, somehow......
All that matters is that moral authority comes from a source that cannot be corrupted by man's intellectualism.
I think that you are missing the point that Nicholas was making. Surely, we need to hold onto the freedom to develop our human qualities. Reading through the thread, I am wondering if some of the people writing here are actually in favour of totalitarianism. Do you really wish to be completely controlled and have you thought what this would really be like?
Morality is not corrupted by intellectualism; morality (such as it is) is mostly or else always corrupted by greed, lust, hedonistic desires and a hunger for power.
And moral authority does not come from anywhere, PRECISELY because it should come form a source that can't be corrupted.
Of course there are smart thinking people who understand how the World is. But rarely are they the ones that set the lines in the public discourse.
Things that have existed and that can be and are taken for granted are simply unnoticed. And it's typical that especially part of the so-called "intellectuals" in their criticism of the society they live in do not notice how central, how important these things that take for granted truly are.
Hence it's no wonder that historically it has been the intellectuals that have promoted and believed in authoritarianism (communism, fascism etc), because they haven't seen the negative side of it in their lives.
Such as? I mean, you're playing coy here - there's an obvious answer, but, knowing this forum as you do, you don't want to give it.
I am not in favour of anything. But I call the shots as they are. In the manner of the proverbial umpire, who says "I calls them as I sees them".
I make no judgement and I make no wishes or opinions or rules. I am a philosopher. I calls them as I sees them.
It is simply astounding to realize how few people understand the necessity of having different views and robust debates, this being the mechanism by which you end up with the most equitable policies (possible).
Is not greed, lust, hedonistic desires and hunger for power intellectual?
For example, Seneca’s Moral Letters were written for a very narrow audience, specifically, for a young Roman knight named Lucilius whom he hoped make his friend, and Jesus wasn’t really preaching his morality to the ppl in general, but rather to his few disciples, and, of course, potential disciples.
Given that intellectuals are intelligent, and nobody but the intellectuals suppor totalitarianism, you are saying that it's the dumbfucks only who oppose totalitarianism.
Then how do you explain the Trump phenomenon and the storm of the [s]Bastille[/s] Capitol?
What are you thinking of here?
And they see that authority protecting their niche in the system.
Make this a sentence that is syntactically sensible. This is nonsense. I am not saying you are speaking nonsense, I am saying the quote is grammatically so out-of-shape that it makes no sense. Please rewrite it in English if you wish me to answer it.
I am sorry; is English not your native tongue? Another sentence that is awkward to the point of being understood, but not quite correctly written. I am not trying to criticize you, I am saying I can't respond to things that I am not totally sure what they mean.
I was referencing one of the most important reasons that man invented God (if He does not exist). Again, moral authority must come from a source (The Absolute) which cannot be challenged. IOW, God said you should be (fill in the blank).
Are you going to argue with God (in public)?
From God, or The Absolute (whichever you prefer).
Many already have, and god has already lost the debate many times over.
It's nice to name a possibly existing, possibly non-existing entity to be the ruler... no risk, he does not make any rules, so YOU make the rules and YOU say that it's from god.
Nice going, but fewer and fewer people believe this.
You would have made a great 8th grade English teacher back in the day, but if you put a comma before the last word, that help you out.
Then , I believe that you should not respond.
I didn't say that only intellectuals support totalitarianism. And do notice that I said "part of the so-called" when referring to the the intellectuals. And who are here these "intellectuals"? Well, they are those who people listen, who journalists interview and ask their views about various issues. It's those who dominate the public discourse and are seen as intellectuals. Usually they have achieved positions in the academia or are successful authors.
Quoting god must be atheist
Our present society makes it easy to live in your bubble by reinforcing it. And actually there are many reasons for the increasing polarization and populism being so widespread in the US. And of course, if those people have been for many months bombarded with saying that the elections will be stolen and then the sitting President that you support urges you to march on Capitol Hill, what would these people do in a crowd?
It's directly from the authoritarian populists playbook. Gullible people love authoritarianism.
I am not suggesting that people should not have debates but I just don't think that in speaking of the loss of freedom advocated I don't think people are considering fully what it would entail. Different people are currently experiencing different degrees of freedom and I think you do need to consider what dictatorship would mean for us and for future generations.
Actually, I think they simply want radical change.
When they are young, they want rapid change. When they are older, they have seen how difficult it is for change to happen and thus they are extremely happy and supportive when the next generation wants radical, rapid changes also. Consensus is a cancer for them. And of course, the hate people saying: "Yeah, I see those problems in our society, but still our society is better than the other option...". Down with the old!!!
Jack, you are not you thinking I support dictatorship?
Whether you want to control a few, one, or a global population, you are still trying to control. Control, or attempt at control, is done by control freaks, no matter their scope of influence.
Its not so much that I think that you are in favour of it, but I do believe that it is on it's way and I am extremely worried about it because I think it will be a life which will probably make the majority wish that they were dead. I see it as the end of humanity, in any meaningful sense.
I once asked my father why he was a Democrat and he told me that you are whatever the party in power happens to be. I believe this is how the majority of (successful) people see it. They are going to protect what they worked a lifetime to build. Ideology runs very thin when you get out into the real world (except if you're an academic where it apparently doesn't seem to matter very much).
BTW, blink your eyes twice or three times and you'll be old, as well!
I somewhat disagree. I think those who change wildly the parties they vote are actually a minority (even if they are a very important minority).
Politicians lie so much that you simply cannot bargain on what they promise to do in favor of you.
Are you not worried if you think that totalitarianism is here..? I feel that I am watching it arise and I am wondering if I am imagining it. When I think that it is happening, I start to question if I am buying into conspiracy theory thinking. But, certainly in England, I feel that the majority of people are oblivious to the possible signs. I am not sure how totalitarian it will become ultimately but I do believe that we are at some kind of crossroads, and it is hard to see what is coming next.
Thanks for clarifying, I though you must be referring to this. I can't argue with God (not sure what 'in public' refers to) as I haven't heard anything from God.
Not too long ago, nobody gave a rat's ass what party you belonged to, so if you wanted to play the game, you did what you had to and one of those things was kissing the ass in power (although you would pay homage to the out-of-power ass, as well).
The swamp (although incredible deep by historical standards) has always been in place.
If you are forking over a great deal of money to a politician, they know EXACTLY what is expected, and if they do not follow-through, then they are through.
There's just too much going on to really get a handle on all the stuff taking place but it will certainly make more sense as events unfold throughout the 20's. Try not to worry too much about it. It is what it is. Take care of yourself and be prepared for the opportunities that arise on the other side.
Not in my country.
In fact, the more you go back in time, the deeper and bitter the divide was. In the US it's a bit different, because you have only a right-wing and a centrist-right party. When you would have real leftist parties in your Congress, you would notice the difference.
Quoting synthesis
Some countries do have a problem with corruption, yes.
Quoting synthesis
Well, if you don't get a seat in the elections, the hassle with lobbyists won't happen either.
Where do you live?
Quoting ssu
Corruption is THE problem everywhere ALL the time. Look at the history of our species!
In the last few days I’ve witnessed a fellow driving a medium-sized pickup going up the road, revving his engine and looking out the window to see who’s watching. In it’s bed he has stationed two flags: one confederate, the other advertising a certain sentiment in these bold white words:
FUCK
BIDEN
Finland.
Quoting synthesis
Even if corruption does happen, it is in some countries a bigger problem than in others. It actually defines a lot how people behave.
Quoting synthesis
And everyone needs to figure out on their own what that authority is, right.
Yes. Stop watching TV and watching movies, as it's all propaganda. For some reason people want to be like the characters they see on TV and the movies, or be told how they should be the actors that play those characters, rather than just being themselves.
Think about religion and politics. It seems like most people need to look to others to give themselves purpose and meaning.
Not to reinforce the notion that Americans know little about what happens outside of the U.S., but Finland is one country of which I am not so familiar. It would seem that smaller countries would have many advantages.
I am a staunch individualist because I believe it is the nature of groups is to self-corrupt, the larger the group, the more potential for corruption (much larger payoffs).
Living a free life requires a great deal effort (physical and mental). If you make it possible for most people to get by without exerting themselves to any degree, they will not have developed the skills necessary (nor the desire) to do what needs to be done to pursue a life based on making free choices.
Perhaps a welfare state mentality.
All watched over by machines of loving grace. - author, Richard Brautigan
Smaller makes it's far more easier to have that feeling of togetherness, social cohesion and to have that "direct democracy". This can be seen from the fact that many tiny countries are ruled de facto by monarchs still. For example Monaco has the executive branch of the state directly under control of the Monarch. Yet as there are less than 40 000 people in Monaco of whom only a fifth are native Monégasque, it is easy for people to directly talk to the ruler. Yet when you have countries with millions of people, that isn't a possibility and hence the link to politicians is quite far. Think about it this way: if you are an American, do you personally know some politicians, Congress members or higher ranking people in the Democratic or Republican party? In a country of 340 million people those 535 voting members of Congress are quite rare.
Quoting synthesis
On the other hand, staunch individualism can result in the resentment of groups altogether and people believing that any form of collectivism or collective idea is bad. Yet it isn't so. Social cohesion is extremely important in a society and the feeling that one ought to do one's share.
I think that Americans just locker these issues in a different way: if they are distrustful of collective issues and emphasize the role of the individual, yet they do actively go to church and are active in charity. On the other hand here in Finland the Finns just love associations of all types. A joke is that if Finns go anywhere in the World, the first thing they will do is build a sauna. The second thing they will do is form an association. I think it's crucial for any republic that it's citizens are active and do participate in collective matters in some form or another and not only voting in the rare election once in a while.
Freedom is having the ability to lose it.
Something like a skill, trade, or craft takes time to hone and master, which requires work, effort, and time. Knowledge too. A studious pursuit of knowledge either in philosophy or science is truly never complete or "finished". It requires a lifelong pursuit and commitment. You can take downtime and even give up, but somebody else from another nation will do what you neglected or were too lazy to do if so.
You can see what happens when the greatest generation is told "hey guys.. great job. you no longer have to do anything anymore .. ever". That sounds amazing. True victory. Then just sit back and watch. Absent of discipline, knowledge, and structure even the salt of the Earth will turn scum of the Earth in a few generations flat. Happens every time. That's what's happening here, I fear.
Not everyone wants to succumb to the complacent degeneracy sipped from a poisoned chalice of ancient triumphs no one can even remember or even actually knows for sure happened.
Quoting Harry Hindu
“[American] students [of the 80s] have not the slightest notion of what an achievement it is to free oneself from public guidance and find resources for guidance within oneself. From what source within themselves would they draw the goals they think they set for themselves? Liberation from the heroic only means that they have no resource whatsoever against conformity to the current “role models.” They are constantly thinking of themselves in terms of fixed standards that they did not make. Instead of being overwhelmed by Cyrus, Theseus, Moses or Romulus, they unconsciously act out the roles of the doctors, lawyers, businessmen or TV personalities around them. One can only pity young people without admirations they can respect or avow, who are artificially restrained from the enthusiasm for great virtue.”
That is my generation.
Fortunately for many of the smaller countries around the world, me and my closest 340M neighbors have been paying to keep you guys free so you can fully enjoy your associations, etc.. I would suppose that Finland would be part of Russia at this point had the U.S. not been prodding that bear with nuclear pokers.
If Finland had to defend itself (which it could never do), then you would see more clearly the negative aspect of these groups. I will always maintain that groups are designed by the few in their own interests. Otherwise, why would they exist?
I think it comes down to the idea that there are a small percentage of people that will do everything (lie, cheat, steal, etc) to get ahead. On the other side of the ledger, there are the majority who just want to do the minimum, just get by while making absolutely certain that their lifetime subscription to the "something for nothing" club is paid-in-full.
Small? Lol. Nah, that's "the everybody" .. we just get to live on the illusion we're good people propped up by those who engaged in illegal acts of murder and robbery with no concern of repercussion (some with full knowledge of such) toward those who would come after. In a philosophical angle it's the hedonic treadmill why we are no longer satisfied with things we didn't deserve yet someone with nothing can find happiness if left alone. Who are you to think you can suddenly now shy away from evolution and Darwinism, survival of the fittest, God is non-existent or otherwise does not punish immorality and abandonment of all you were given. The pact was sealed in the blood of the innocents. The die was cast, the bed is made, if there is no God you win. If so.. well, you wouldn't have to worry for long. Or maybe so. In either case, it's only what you deemed was right, let that never be forgotten. You will not however, corrupt or persuade others who may still be saved with your myopic drivel any longer.
It's a silly question. Being yourself doesn't necessarily require knowledge of who you are. A cat does not know it's a cat, but has no issues being a cat. We are all outcomes of our genes and upbringing and are always being ourselves. It's just that some people (and cats) are followers and some are leaders.
That's a pretty negative outlook.
Hope you have a better day today!
Uh actually.... I think you don't know Finnish history. The story during WW2 and later being non-aligned, not in NATO, never getting the Marshal aid. And no Liberation-Day / VE-Day for us in WW2, thankfully!
Quoting synthesis
Yep, you've never heard of the Winter War between Finland and Soviet Union, I presume.
But we surely know that we are expendable and nobody would give a rats ass about us, if it wasn't for ourselves.
But you upbraided synthesis for trying to be someone else:
Quoting Harry Hindu
So, apparently, at least some ppl aren’t always just being themselves, but are impressed enough by examples they admire so much that they want to be that person. In the mid-80s Allan Bloom wrote, “ I discovered that students who boasted of having no heroes secretly had a passion to be like Mick Jagger, to live his life, have his fame. They were ashamed to admit this in a university, although I am not certain that the reason has anything to do with a higher standard of taste. It is probably that they are not supposed to have heroes.”
Quoting Harry Hindu
But man is satisfied with neither his nature nor nurture. Often, to be himself (or herself) he thinks, he needs to alter his genetic gender, and work hard to overcome an oppressive upbringing...all in order to become who he truly is.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Your example goes straight to my point: a human being, unlike a cat, knows what he is, and, unlike a cat, often has issues with it.
If synthesis is a follower, and I'm not, then telling them how to live their lives and how to think, and then they do just that, is what we both do and how we are both being ourselves. Leaders lead. Followers follow.
Quoting Todd Martin
If someone asserts that they Elvis Presley reincarnated, are they really being Elvis Presley reincarnated, or just being delusional?
You are correct. My knowledge of Finnish history is nearly zero. I am glad to hear that you guys were able to remain somewhat independent. How you deal with the cold, though, is beyond me. I can barely deal the winters we have in Southern California!
We are not free; so I don't think it a valid question. Freedom is an ideal; a starting point for thought that is then traded for social goods like law and order, the enforcement of contracts, and national defence.
If you were to ask whether I think social impositions on individual freedom have gone too far, I'd say so - but it's not as if freedom were much more than hypothetical in the first place.
Not only is freedom an ideal, but so is everything else. Even so, and within those limitations, we must still confront the forces of evil that would enslave us all without a second thought, so casting one's line out into the sea of freedom, one hopes to find others also fishing for the chance to distract TPTB for just a little bit longer.
Quoting synthesis
I have no idea what you might possibly mean by this; even from context, relating it to limitations - what on earth do you mean? Do you imagine I was invoking Plato's allegory of the cave - when I said freedom is an ideal? Surely not. So in what way is everything an ideal?
I believe that our intellect has no real access to the truth of anything, so what we do is create our own existence within the context of overall accepted existence. Freedom means something different to everybody but you are correct that it does not exist in any real way.
If it's the case for freedom, then it is the case for all things. No matter how simple something appears, it is infinitely complex so that our minds have no chance of comprehension (so we do what our species does best...bullshit)..
What does that have to do with the question - does anyone in the West still want to be free? There's zero implication to subjectivism in the question; and the term ideal, in the response - denotes a political ideal. I'd have to wonder if you are mentally ill - that you answer in such a manner. "Everything is ideal" - other than your answer. That's a real steaming turd!
I think this is largely true. As long as Soylent Green isn't people, why care? Few people I have spoken to can tell me what freedom actually is in any coherent form and I certainly don't have a robust conception of it. I know Americans seem to be very fond of the term, but I am sure it is understood differently (and not just across Liberal/Conservative lines). I'm tempted to think that notions of freedom are as great a source of internecine squabbles and irresolvable argument as religion.
Freedom for a member of a political community is his permission within that community to pursue the things considered necessary by that community for living a fully human life. I am aware this is a vague generalization, but you’ve got to start somewhere.
Quoting counterpunch
cp, what's the point of responding if you don't think it's a valid question?
My response to you was basically suggesting that when it comes down to it, is anything valid? It is easy to disprove anything when dealing with an intellectual framework where all things are relative and constantly changing.
I agree that it is very hard to define freedom, but it's really easy to tell when you've lost it.
Hmm - I'm not so sure. Obvious examples like restrictions on movement or religious freedom, sure. Hong Kong today versus 1999, certainly. However some of this is subtle stuff. People don't always make connections and some freedoms are lost via stealth and there's the fact that some people might not see a given issue presented as a question of freedom - COVID mask wearing, for instance.
Well, so far - there has been no point to responding. As an attempt to educate you, it has so far proven an entirely fruitless endeavour. But I could not have known that going in. I couldn't have known that you are unable to grasp the concept of freedom as a political ideal - without immediately devolving to some sort of ultra left wing subjectivism.
I don't subscribe to subjectivist philosophies myself, for I see very little virtue and much danger in doing so. Objective reality exists and we are able to establish valid knowledge of reality by scientific method. So no, everything is not an ideal.
Freedom is a political ideal; a principle - and starting point for thought about how to build a successful and humane civilisation. That supposed freedom is traded for social goods, like like law and order, the enforcement of contracts, and national defence - provided for by taxation. Hence, it's an ideal in that freedom is never fully realised, yet is still valued.
That so, your question is not valid. Freedom has never existed. In reality - absolute freedom is anarchy, and anarchy soon devolves into slavery, for slavery - not freedom, is the natural condition of man.
Few seem to understand freedom requires responsibility.
cp, what's with the attitude? This is just a friendly conversation.
Freedom is all kinds of things to all kinds of people. Personally, it is something within, but that wasn't the point of this thread. The freedom I was referencing was generic.
And suggesting that freedom doesn't really exist seems quite subjective to my eye. Of course absolute freedom does not exist but then again, absolute anything does not exist either, unless you wish to consider, The Absolute, where everything "exists" in the void. But, if I recall, you're not into that sort of thing.
If it were your thing (and if you understand how thinking works), you could trash every thought ever made on this site. It's not very difficult. Cognition and language is a system that obeys rules like any other system, so once you figure it out...
Freedom seems to be more of a sense you get (despite the laws). Sometimes the laws say one thing and the street another (an example being the American Constitution during slavery). Other times, the laws are quite rigid (drug laws in the some part of the U.S. were basically ignored during the 60's/70's)
I think anyway you slice it, governments all over the world have used the pandemic to orchestrate a massive power-grab. Hopefully, people will push back in order to re-gain some of their lost freedoms in the coming months/years. .
Quoting synthesis
What attitude? I'm thinking that's projection on your part.
Quoting synthesis
We'll see!
Quoting synthesis
Freedom is not all kinds of things in political theory; and it's in those terms I'm seeking to educate you. You need it. Your subjectivist, relativist, politically correct approach to things - I can only assume is what seeps in to fill the void of ignorance, because it doesn't make sense in political theory terms. How do you not understand freedom as a political ideal? What did they teach you at school? We're you brought up in a cult or something?
Quoting synthesis
Why do you imagine I would want to do that? My manner may be abrasive, but my intent is to educate people, that they are able to understand my philosophically and politically justified plan to save Western civilisation from a crisis of unsustainability. You don't even seem to understand why freedom is a good thing!
THAT attitude.
Quoting counterpunch
You have no idea how comforting it is to know that somebody cares... :)
Quoting counterpunch
What did they teach me at school? Are you really asking me what they taught me at school? You've got to be kidding.
cp, you seem like a pretty bright guy (as do most here), but you have no clue what's beyond your attempts to intellectualize whatever truths you seems to hold. Do you really believe that what you put forth is in any sense real?
Lesson one for you should be the realization that it's all BS. And even if your the best BS-er on the planet, it's still only grade A-1 BS. Or do you believe you have some kind of portal to The Truth? Or perhaps you believe that all things intellectual undergo constant change except for cp, as he has figured out how to pontificate The Absolute Truth.
That must be it.
Oh, right - you mean my determination to attempt always, to speak the truth, rather than blow smoke up your arse? That's why the friendliness, or otherwise - of this conversation is undetermined. It's irrelevant to me whether we are friends - but apparently, you will seek to accommodate other's views, like you did when - failing to understand the concept of freedom as a political ideal, assumed I'm dealing in ultra subjectivist - nothing is true, everything is an ideal, baloney!
Quoting synthesis
Clearly, they didn't teach you about rhetorical questions. Or freedom. Or science!
Quoting synthesis
That could be a rhetorical question; but it isn't. So yes, I do believe that what I put forth is grounded in the real. The absolute truth? No! I specifically reject approaches that imply absolutes.
Quoting synthesis
Well, it isn't - and therein lies the problem. I know what you think...
"But how little it is now understood can be gauged from the procedure of the moral reformer who, after saying that “good” means “what we are conditioned to like” goes on cheerfully to consider whether it might be “better” that we should be conditioned to like something else. What in Heaven’s name does he mean by “better”?"
CS Lewis "Poison of Subjectivism"
The notion that human beings have no access to reality (primarily owing to the fact that all things intellectual are in constant flux) might just suggest that what you believe is real can easily be deconstructed (as can all things knowable) and vanish into thin air.
If you reject absolutes, this might suggest that you (and everybody else) find sustenance in the relative.
Quoting counterpunch
You know what I think? You don't even know what you think!
The poison is moral relativism, not intellectual relativism, in general.
All knowledge constantly changes due to the constantly changing factors which give rise to it. Since even the simplest of things is given birth by an infinite number of factors/events preceding, you are telling me that you understand not only simple things but highly complex ones, as well?
This is the arrogance of man.
Okay, deconstruct my knowledge claim that water is two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen! Deconstruct the bacterial theory of disease - such that it is relative to the claim that evil spirits cause disease! Deconstruct the second law of thermodynamics; the simplest implication of which is that heat energy is transferred from the hotter body to the cooler body. Should be easy right?
Quoting synthesis
Lots of suggestions; none of them good ones.
Quoting synthesis
Perhaps I am not as articulate as I think I am, because I don't know how you constantly miss my meaning. I try to speak plainly. I deliberately try not to use philosophical jargon - in part because such terms come loaded with baggage, but also because I try to express ideas in the simplest possible terms.
Quoting synthesis
In terms of wrong - that's brilliant.
Quoting synthesis
No. That's not what I'm saying at all. For example, I claim it is true that life evolved; but I recognise that doesn't explain how life came to exist in the first place. It's an intriguing question, but not one I claim to answer, because I don't claim to have access to absolute truth. Does that mean life did not evolve? The evidence that life evolved is overwhelming. I can reasonably claim to know that it is true; not least because any alternate explanation, like the skeptical doubt that we may all be brains in jars being fed sensory data we mistake for reality - poses far bigger questions than accepting evolution as an apparent fact.
Freedom is the state of being unrestricted.
You can be more restricted than others, or less restricted. But everyone is restricted. The material world is restricted.
You can only enjoy complete freedom if you remove all restrictions. But restrictions play a part in keeping things cohesive. Remove all restrictions, and the system disintegrates.
Some say their god is freedom itself. Complete freedom of will, and omnipotence. Dangerous combination.
This is why it gives others a headache to define freedom. If it leads to chaos and destruction... then it is bad, and Freedom is so sacrosanct in their minds, that they are incapable of comprehending or imagining or accepting that freedom in its purest form is bad.
Piece of cake...
Do you really believe that in 50, 100, 1000 years from now that our conception of any of the sciences will still be the same? If you have studied science in the least, you would have to know that scientific knowledge is exploding, a process that will leave all current concepts completely vacuous much sooner than we believe possible.
Nobody can imagine what science will look like 50 years from now, yet 500. Humanity is in its infancy in terms of knowledge.
Quoting counterpunch
Articulation is not your issue, arrogance is.
It is not what you (believe) you know which is important, but instead, what you know that you cannot know that means everything (and I get the paradox).[/quote]
Quoting counterpunch
You can cling on to your objective-ness all you want, but until you replace the interface with something other than your humanity, you will exist in the relative world of illusion, delusion, and disillusion.
Quoting counterpunch
Well, just for fun, let's say man knows .00000001% of what there is to know (and that's being quite generous). Does this body of knowledge give you (or any of us) the ability to determine anything at all?
The best we can do is simply observe (with clarity) and remain in the flow. Once our conceptualization kicks-in, intellectual insanity ensues as we transform what is actually taking place into our version of reality, one that literally creates and sustains our personal hell on Earth.
That's only thinking.
Yes, I do believe that in 50, 100, 1000 years from now the second law of thermodynamics, evolution, the bacterial theory of disease, h2O, will be h20 - because that is the nature of the truths uncovered by science, and that's why they matter. They were true 50, 100, 1000 years ago whether we knew it or not because that is the nature of the reality we inhabit. It is real, causal - and we need to observe, and act responsibly with regard to, true knowledge of reality/Creation. Personally, I'm agnostic.
Please don't make the mistake of believing the era we live in is somehow special. All we know about things will be deposited into the waste-bin of history similar to those who trod this planet before us.
I agree with you that the truth is what it is (and there certainly is truth) but whether man will ever be able to access such is doubtful due to all kinds of difficulties and limitations (including the notion that we do not exist [intellectually] in the present). Our languages are woefully inadequate as are pretty much everything else we are involved with at this point.
The good news is that we can transcend the mundane and simply be. It's a wonderful alternative for those who are willing to cease banging their heads against the wall. Life is pretty darn good if you accept it on its own terms.
I believe that a prosperous and sustainable future is possible, from where we are, by accepting science is true as common ground, and further I believe that acting on that basis would work to promote a better future. That's not an unreasonable belief. The first implication; I would suggest follows from a scientific understanding of reality is that we need to exploit the vast heat energy of the earth on a massive scale to continue to grow into the future. We need to meet our energy needs, and can exceed them drawing from that virtually limitless source of concentrated clean power - and we can use that power to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability very much in our favour. Canada is mistaken, carbon tax this stop that, have less pay more is the wrong approach. Windmills will never meet our needs. We need the energy to spend to support continued growth; and given that energy the sky is not the limit!
Quoting synthesis
If you look back at the quote by counterpunch you were responding to, you’ll notice he was speaking of the distant both past and future, thus not making the present “special” at all.
So too, is mining energy intensive - and it follows logically that greater concentrations of minerals are mined first, and that over time, it requires a greater amount of energy to process larger amounts of ore to produce the same, or more quantities of refined metals. It's inevitable, and it's an inevitability we can and must off-set by producing and using clean "magma" energy - such that would imply a sectoral approach to switching over consistent with a scientifically rational view of how to proceed to apply this energy! It need not be in direct competition with fossil fuels - much good could be done quite besides, and even to clean up the pollution of technologies we continue to use regardless! Freedom!
This is a supply side problem being treated as a consumption issue. Resources are in fact, a consequence of the energy available to create them. Vastly more clean energy would give us vastly more choice and more time. It is technologically conceivable. It would work, and is the minimal necessary disruption to the way things are that is consistent with a sustainable future. It is, in terms of a scientific understanding of reality the single most fundamental thing we could do to do most good. It's right there in the physics. Energy and entropy. Page 1.