|
|
|
|
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/15/2009 11:49:50 PM |
well when you can provide a link to a site dealing in a hard science such as biology that makes a case for natural law then it may have some credence
Do you think law and the legal system is based on science???? This is a science and PHILOSOPHY forum; do you think philosophy irrelevant???
BTW, science used to be called "natural philosophy"; if it was still called that, would you consider it meaningless, or inferior to "hard philosophy?"
The article itself states " The term "natural law" is ambiguous
So is the term "fundamental justice", but you will notice it is in the Canadian Constitution. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/16/2009 4:03:47 AM |
Here is another little factoid. The amount of laws required to govern a society is directly proportional to how ethical the people of that society are. I doubt that. We have far more laws than almost any other society, millions of them. If that is true, then our society is almost the most immoral society that ever existed.
So another question. If we did live in anarchy and there were no laws, and people killed eachother for food and the streets were ruled by gangs and crime lords, there was no police, or government, militaries, and it was basically a free for all, is that freedom? There's a place where there are no laws: the playground. There, the guys with the biggest fists would have everything, and the weak kids would get beat up and have their lunch money taken from them, and would have nothing to eat. Frankly, I don't call that freedom, not by a long chalk. | |
|
| |
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/16/2009 7:50:34 AM |
There, the guys with the biggest fists would have everything, and the weak kids would get beat up and have their lunch money taken from them, and would have nothing to eat. Frankly, I don't call that freedom, not by a long chalk.
Welcome to the statutory legal system that we have now. Most of the statutes were written by "hired thugs" that we call "elected representatives" so the banks could take our lunch money (through their corporations) with impunity. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/16/2009 9:39:46 AM | I read this article that stated that it is false that when disaster hits, and society breaks down, its every man for himself, chaos, and anarchy. What actually happens is people quickly organize into groups and help each other, and protect each other.
What you have when society breaks down is in fact a more civil, and closely knit society, or societies, than the impersonal, every man for himself, society that we now have. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/16/2009 12:06:32 PM |
What you have when society breaks down is in fact a more civil, and closely knit society, or societies, than the impersonal, every man for himself, society that we now have.
and it isn't profitable to have people uniting in freedom. The powers that be find it much easier to exploit "human resources" when they are feeling socially isolated, fragmented and apathetic to the fate of others. It is much easier and more profitable to manage 6 billion powerless individuals than united societies working to serve the interests of their fellows, instead of the interests of their "betters." | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/16/2009 12:27:45 PM |
I read this article that stated that it is false that when disaster hits, and society breaks down, its every man for himself, chaos, and anarchy. What actually happens is people quickly organize into groups and help each other, and protect each other.
In situations where there's a disaster (such as an earthquake) it's a local catastrophe and people work to restore things to their pevious state with help sent in from unafected areas.
If it were something to cause the total collapse of society, such as an asteroid or comet strike that eliminated a great deal of the population, and also meant that people worldwide were struggling to cope it would be every person for themself, and anyone that was a liability to the group or was of no use would be eliminated ( either directly or through inaction to help them) because to support them would be a waste of time & resources. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/16/2009 12:44:42 PM |
such as an asteroid or comet strike that eliminated a great deal of the population, and also meant that people worldwide were struggling to cope it would be every person for themself
I disagree. I think the worse the disaster, the more people would be inclined to help each other (within reason of course; if feeding a few extra mouths meant a larger group would probably die of starvation, then I suspect they might be left to their own devices to survive).
There have been many horrible disasters in our history. Is there a precedent that can be cited for the human behaviour one way or the other? | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/16/2009 4:59:09 PM | In the true sense and defintion of the words "free" and "society",,,the answer is a resounding NOPES. Not possible,,,,for the individual that is. Once you, as an individual are part of a society,,,you must conform in some shape or form. To be truely "free" one must look at others,,their rules, their laws,,,their concerns,,,and walk quietly away.
Remember the saying it takes a village to raise,,,,well,,,whatever???? If you are part of that village/society,,,you do have to answer, conform,,,,follow,,,or you will hear about it. It's just part of the deal. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/16/2009 7:04:47 PM |
disagree. I think the worse the disaster, the more people would be inclined to help each other (within reason of course; if feeding a few extra mouths meant a larger group would probably die of starvation, then I suspect they might be left to their own devices to survive).
That's the point; if it was a worldwide catastrophe every nation would ( rightly) worry about it's own survival & wouldn't spend time & use resources helping foreign countries; everyone else would be left to their own devices. And probably within each nation the decisions would be made on who to try to save ( people in general good health, young & physically fit) & who to abandon ( elderly and those with serious health problems requiring continuous use of medical resources & time). Not a pretty picture but it could be a necessary one; like removing a gangrenous limb to keep the rest of the body alive. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/16/2009 8:26:14 PM | | A "society" needs only two people in it to exist. Are people here contending that (for instance) a married couple could not be a free society? (i.e. that one or both of them has to surrender some of their rights to belong to it?) Of course some rights have to be surrendered, out of moral obligation. (i.e. the right to have sex with anyone the individual pleases to, is surrendered out of the moral obligation entailed in the vows) Does that mean marriage is a tyranny and not a free society of two people? | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/17/2009 5:13:00 AM |
Does that mean marriage is a tyranny and not a free society of two people?
They can be "free" but not as individuals. As a pair,,yes,,,but only if they are on the same wavelength on all subjects, thoughts, etc. Even a loving couple will have disagreements and require some "bending" of their own beliefs to keep together. I don't think you can define "free" in the true sense of the word if you are worrying about anothers position, thoughts,feelings,etc. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/17/2009 6:48:24 AM | The very definition of society implies that there are rules and therefore some form of control.
That’s on top of other barriers to (and constrictions of) freedom, such as:
· The laws of physics
· Your biological desires and needs
· Access to resources and energy (Car, Fuel, Plane, etc)
· Social status including “sexual market value” | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/17/2009 7:04:32 AM | | The point is that a society is something you join voluntarily, to achieve a common goal. There are rules and restrictions within a society, that you freely agree to abide by in order to belong. If you are free to join and free to leave, how is the society itself not free? | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/17/2009 7:58:12 AM | ^^^ Msg: 90
Very few people out of the 6.8 billion (or whatever it is now) people on this planet chooses to join a society as oppose to going to live on new land and make their own laws and values. Think about it, you are born into a given set of rules. I never chose to pay taxes or stick to the speed limit, I'm physically forced to by other people.
What if I wanted to leave? Where would I go - the only options are other societies, usually with similar laws. All the habitable land on this planet has been claimed, and I don’t have a rocket ship. Some wise ass might say why don’t you buy some land and declare it your own country… not gonna work, soon as you brake the law of the land that surrounds you, you’ll be invaded by police officers before you can say “bushiraqoil”.
PS: I'm not an anti-statist, but these facts are never the less true. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/17/2009 8:30:19 AM | The more inventive and articulate people become, the more imaginative ways we find to supress our freedoms and instead postulate a fan of "free choices" as the gem of a "society governed by the principles of freedom" which all serve a common end with regards to the society (to preserve/contribute/build upon the society itself, or at least those in the society's thrones) but do not represent freedom per say. Rather "This society is more free than by way of comparison". With regards to existential human freedom, no society allows this freedom to be exercised fully.
I disagree with having to willingly join a society as well. It depends how far you're going to define what a society is? For me, it's not just nations, it's like minded groupings of political, economic, religious and scientific thought. it stretches a bit further than the small hamlets of this landlocked county of mine, in my opinion anyway.
For example, I am born. No choice was made by me to join the society of the human race for starters, nor which country I happened to be born into (to observe their laws) now, when I am of age, I could do something about this should I feel the need to, like move away or become a hermit. Am I free now? Well, not really. If i'm not part of a society I won't be working so I will need to create my own food. My choices are already being limited by apparent "freedom". The likeliness of where I can gather my food from is possibly restricted by county laws of where I am legally able to fish/farm/hunt. More choices restricted. I COULD operate without regard for these, and be free, but before long I could be in trouble with the laws of any society that catches me, then I will lose more of my freedoms.
If I choose to live away in my hermit cave, but work for a living (So I have more choice with my nourishment) I need to join the society of capitalism by taking up work. This requires me to join the Property Market society (without a legal address I am not getting a pay check) and joining either of these sets me in line for the Tax Society.
I understand the benefits of "utilizing" society in this way requires me in effort to "give back" (taxes) but the point is freedoms being restricted is quite subtle. People can recommend a "If you don't like it, leave" but when you think about it, short of the Dream Hermit scenario, that isn't easy. You'll need money to accomplish whatever changes you make possibley, so you need to work. If you don't work, you won't feed or shelter yourselves.
I'm not saying work is evil by any means, I'm trying to point our apparent freedoms come with the invisible hooks of other agencies with will not declare which behaviours they restrict, instead painting the only one you can follow as "ideal" and the alternatives as "bad". It's more subtle. Before you violate a rule, you get beheaded or whatever. Now, you'll slowly starve to death or just wither away alone somewhere, whilst the people in the hotseat will then peep down in apparent pity saying "see, we told you it was the best course of action, but would you listen?"
I don't think humanity is cut out for freedom, yet. The day we possibly obtain and realize it will be a boon of enlightenment, but I think it would also be a potentially very destructive moment in our history. When the labels of being told what, who and how you are fade and people realize there is essentially nothing stopping them from rooting out deviance/lacklustre in their governments through the power of massive numbers and voices of loud unrest.
Being societal creatures however, I wonder if even past such a moment, would we not eventually return to methods of controlling/supressing ourselves? We are the rational animal, working in such large units almost requires us by proxy to do this, short of the scenario described earlier (Everyone having a selfless and ethical mindset) which, to be frank, will not happen anytime soon. Natural law or not, people's ethical impetus has a tendency to skew in circumstance where they find their own existence significantly encroached upon in one way or another. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/17/2009 8:45:18 AM |
I never chose to pay taxes or stick to the speed limit, I'm physically forced to by other people.
Yes you did. Believe it or not, you volunteered to do those things. You didn't have to, but there was a "trick" involved (a massive deception by government that fools nearly everyone. You have to know who you really are before you can free yourself from the deception.
What if I wanted to leave? Where would I go - the only options are other societies
If you don't want to be a hermit, you are quite correct; you must join another society. Where? Why not where you were born and like to live? In truth, leaving a society doesn't have to entail leaving the country; it is very much more like quitting your job to work for another company.
these facts are never the less true.
The facts are based on assumptions. It is only by an erroneous assumption that you got "conned" into signing up. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/17/2009 9:21:41 AM |
This requires me to join the Property Market society
It requires you to join A society, but not necessarily that one. Why can't a bunch of people who feel as you do band together, work together, help one another, and build the kind of society you'd like instead of "having no choice" but to join a crummy one? | |
|
| |
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/18/2009 3:41:43 AM |
Other than things that would harm others, what can't you do?
Well, for one thing, you can't stop government from robbing you and squandering YOUR money on whatever they want, like killing people in wars of aggression. For another thing, you get robbed even more if you violate any of their statutes and wind up in one of their corporate courtrooms. You can't assert your equality under law because you've been conned into signing yourself into servitude. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/20/2009 7:50:19 AM |
If you are free to join and free to leave, how is the society itself not free?
You have quite a few homeless,,,,making that choice "freely" that would disagree with you on that one. Because they decided not to follow the norm(yes there are people who make that choice), they are blackballed,,,or all painted with the same brush by another "society". Free choice,,,total ca ca. Go to a Grade 1 class and tell me how they are teaching the skills to make choices of which society you should be volunteering to join????? Quite different from country to country,,,even city to city,,,or neighbourhood to neighbourhood, for that matter. Once you are "in" it takes quite the free thinker to get "out". Of course,,,those "free thinkers" will be called something,,because they don't fit the masses school of thought of the day. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/23/2009 1:07:50 PM | Freedom is too abstract to argued effectively.
Freedom to do what you want: in a mind controlled society you can achieve total freedom of doing anything you want, because your scope of desires is artificially limited - you simply won't imagine wanting something that you can't do already.
Freedom of action with consequences: you are free to do anything you are capable of doing as long as you accept the consequences of your actions. It may be illegal to kill your neighbor, but you are still free to do so if you don't mind being chased by the police and locked up for life or executed.
Freedom of action without consequences: impossible to achieve fully without having god-like powers to change rules of the world, also impossible if there's even 1 other individual with similar powers. | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/23/2009 9:03:49 PM | You have quite a few homeless,,,,making that choice "freely" that would disagree with you on that one
Why would they disagree if the homelessness was their choice and not a choice foisted on them by an evil and corrupted society that they would be better off leaving anyway?
Go to a Grade 1 class and tell me how they are teaching the skills to make choices of which society you should be volunteering to join?
Are you kidding me?...That's where the indoctrination of the current society begins. They no longer teach critical thinking skills because they don't want critical thinkers. they want obedient workers and good consumers. There are a lot of university educated lawyers, accountants and even economists, who believe the drivel that's driven into their heads. Very few below PhD level even know how the monetary system really works (even most of the legislators don't know! They only know it'll be REALLY worth their while to pass bill X). That is quite deliberate, because if people knew how badly they are screwed by their government (and this applies to just about every country), there'd be a millions strong lynch mob marching on the capitol and a lot of "representatives" hanging from streetlamps.
Freedom is too abstract to argued effectively.
I disagree. Freedom (by my definition of it) is the right to do anything that causes no harm. If you harm others, you are not honouring their rights, so why should they honour yours? If you cause no harm, why should you not have the right to do as you please (and allow others the same right)?
In all fairness, if what you do causes no harm, why would you not have the right to do it without suffering some consequence? If you infringe on somone else's rights, why should you not expect an adverse, but just consequence for your action? | |
|
| Is it even possible to have a free society?
Posted: 9/23/2009 11:25:29 PM | @ Velvet
Good example of what I'm talking about.
It would seem that too many people think rights are subjective or arbitrary and that laws are laws because somebody said they are and wrote them down, or they have fallen for the trap of "democracy" and believe rights & duties are only what the tyranny of the democratic majority would dictate.
It should be obvious that if rights & duties were simply a matter of a democratic "vote", there would be no republics with constitutions and bills of rights to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It should also be obvious that writing something on paper and calling it a law doesn't mean diddleysquat either. there are many unjust "laws", that's what starts revolutions. Does a population suddenly become criminal overnight? No!...They know when "laws" are unjust and rebel against the false authority that passed them. Rights aren't subjective either. Just because most people don't recognize a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Slavery is a good example. It was always wrong, but we rationalized ourselves into thinking it was OK because slaves weren't "real" people like us; they were somehow less (interestingly, many of the old arguments are pretty much the same as the ones used today regarding animals.) Eventually, we recognized that the rationalizations didn't really hold water and freed the slaves. Slavery wasn't suddenly wrong; it was always wrong. We were just too ignorant and/or too selfish to admit it.
Can a society be free and just? Yer damn right it can!! And the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can create a free and just society! | |
|
| |
|
| Page 4 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
