I been thinking about this since reading the other thread. Isn't it a much better dream to wish for world freedom?
World Peace
- Thread starter enlisted person
- Start date
Rii
Rear Admiral
Let me guess, the 'freedom' you're thinking of is that brand which accepts - nay, requires - oppression to the extent necessary to protect the peculiar institution of private property, thereby - in the absence of further hypocritical anti-freedom measures such as taxation and labour regulation - inevitably leading to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few and the exploitation of the masses; and thus to conflict. 
^^^Workers of the world, unite!
Freedom from what, exactly?
Not freedom from anything, just basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom from oppression, things like the people of the soviet union did not enjoy during its long period of peace with other nations with no wars. Just because there is "peace" and a country is not sending folks off to war, does not mean that the people have any freedoms. I would much rather see a people waring to get their freedom, than living under peaceful oppression.
I might agree with your definition, but you would be surprised to know that not everybody wants that. In the end, you'll just put them in another kind of oppression.
I would prefer that for myself too, but I would much rather see other people decide for themselves.
^ But people in the Soviet Union weren't being oppressed by capitalists. 
Sure, they got shot in the back of the head if they didn't meet the Central Committee's production quota laid out in the 5-year plan, but people, once freed from capitalist oppression, like being shot in the back of the head for not working hard enough. They also enjoy mass starvation, secret police kicking in their doors, getting ratted out by their neighbors and sent to a labor camp, and standing all day in bread lines at a communist bread distribution center that doesn't actually have any bread.
I mean, it sure beats driving down the 101 in a Mercedes convertible, going from a pilates class on the beach to dinner at some L.A. hotspot - where in between ordering the wine and some lamb come the moans "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
Sure, they got shot in the back of the head if they didn't meet the Central Committee's production quota laid out in the 5-year plan, but people, once freed from capitalist oppression, like being shot in the back of the head for not working hard enough. They also enjoy mass starvation, secret police kicking in their doors, getting ratted out by their neighbors and sent to a labor camp, and standing all day in bread lines at a communist bread distribution center that doesn't actually have any bread.
I mean, it sure beats driving down the 101 in a Mercedes convertible, going from a pilates class on the beach to dinner at some L.A. hotspot - where in between ordering the wine and some lamb come the moans "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"
You don't have some bunnies that need watchin', g?
I feel at this point it's a good idea to point out the debate between positive freedom and negative freedom. Some have called his debate the defining ideological characteristic of the Cold War. I tend to disagree and define it as two paranoid superpowers trying to look more powerful than the other so as to not show that they're scared.
Anyway, Negative Liberty means "Freedom from". In other words, it's the freedom from an oppressive force that takes away your rights (right to say what you want, right to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm another, etc).
Positive Liberty means "Freedom to do". It focuses on doing everything possible to ensure people have the ability to achieve their goals. It would focus more on providing public access to give speeches on (a private newspaper, for example, might not publish your side of the story, so your freedom is restricted even if the government isn't the one doing it) or perhaps free education to help you with a job later.
Of course, they're not exclusive and, when taken to extremes, both get pretty crazy. But both are important. When practical, you'd want "World Freedom" to include both kinds of freedom (although I feel that, if that happens, you'd still have world peace, since war is a restriction on freedom).
Anyway, Negative Liberty means "Freedom from". In other words, it's the freedom from an oppressive force that takes away your rights (right to say what you want, right to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm another, etc).
Positive Liberty means "Freedom to do". It focuses on doing everything possible to ensure people have the ability to achieve their goals. It would focus more on providing public access to give speeches on (a private newspaper, for example, might not publish your side of the story, so your freedom is restricted even if the government isn't the one doing it) or perhaps free education to help you with a job later.
Of course, they're not exclusive and, when taken to extremes, both get pretty crazy. But both are important. When practical, you'd want "World Freedom" to include both kinds of freedom (although I feel that, if that happens, you'd still have world peace, since war is a restriction on freedom).
Rii
Rear Admiral
The ownership relation exists entirely in one's mind. The notion that one can claim bits of the universe as extensions of oneself is absurd. If I choose to invest my energy in a particular way ... then I have chosen to invest my energy in a particular way. That's as far as it goes; I have no reason, no right to expect anything in return. The institution of private property is an illusion fashioned and maintained between humans for pragmatic purposes, and is infinitely malleable - in the form of taxation, eminent domain, and so on - to those purposes. When appropriately regulated, it seems to work reasonably well; indeed, it may well be the best solution for social units larger than our primate heritage prepares us to deal with*. But it is merely a solution, one amongst alternatives; not some innate right of Man. Indeed, the latter doctrine practically requires religion to make sense of itself: "and God awarded unto Man dominion over all earthly things". Or whatever.
* >~150 people. That's about the point where we stop seeing people as people. Look it up.
Yes but that is the rub, an oppressed people lack the freedom to decide for themselves. A free people can decide what they want and vote for it.
All depends on how you define "freedom". I have a feeling my definition and yours might differer significantly.
Rii
Rear Admiral
Oppression is part and parcel of democracy. Why do the people need to vote? Why don't they simply each act as they would've voted? Because voting isn't about oneself, it's about others: I vote to oppress you with the power of majority rule.
The basic freedoms like free speech, the freedom the choose your own leaders, etc. Things that most of the people posting the this board enjoy.
Peace doesn't mean a lack of war. Peace means there's no need for a war. The "freedom" is understood.
But people call for peace whenever the need for war arises, even if it is justified. Before WWII there was the "America first" peace movement even when most people think America's entry into WWII was warranted and Justified. Just because people want peace does not mean there is not the need for war. Many people believe that true peace is maintained through the threat of war.
Yes. Some people don't like war and don't think it's ever justified.
And it's a pretty shitty way to live.
I see the problem!
All human relations, structures, feelings, and concepts only exist in your mind. Equality, oppression, throbbing pain, rage, the joy of topless T-shirt night? It's all in your head. But just because it's just in your head doesn't make it invalid.
Even my rabbits recognize ownership and personal property. It may seem silly to us, but they know what is theirs and what isn't, and mark and defend things accordingly.
Your disconnect seems to be a misunderstanding of basic capitalism, which is based on the law of stuff: If you want more stuff, make more stuff. If you're not good at making the stuff you want make some stuff somebody else wants and then trade with them, or help someone else make some stuff for themselves and they'll give you some stuff in return (otherwise you wouldn't waste your time with them).
If someone takes some stuff that belongs to you, such as a clay pot, pursue them to the ends of the Earth, break their arms, cut out their tongue, gouge out their eyes, and then rip their heart out and throw it on the ground. Make sure everybody else knows what you did so they won't be tempted to steal your stuff in the future.
All early writing systems were attempts to label our stuff (which probably gave English the apostrophe "s" as a shorthand for "his" because early labels on relics says things like "John his pipe" "Mark his knife" "James his pot") and early counting systems, like Sumerian cuniform, were founded on a need to count our stuff.
Unfortunately evolution didn't weed out worthless Marxist theoreticians, so we have people who sit around refusing to work, spending their time coming up with bizarre conspiracy theories about social heirarchies and capitalist revanchists, claiming the law of stuff is invalid, and demanding a free share of everyone else's stuff - just because.
When they grab power they have to use violence to force people to keep making stuff, because everyone quits working as soon as they realize that anything they make is pre-stolen by a bunch of Marxist vultures. Finally the people get fed up and the only worthwhile stuff they make are inner-tube lifeboats so they can float to Miami or raincoat balloons to float into West Germany.
Similar threads
