Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
FR
A better question may be, "What is freedom?"
what he said^^^^^^^^
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
I'm not advocating democracy here or anything like that, or saying that when you consider the whole package the United States is any less free than anyone else.
A better question may be, "What is freedom?"
ah.... the Achilles heel!
I have proposed that on several forums and without fail is quickly swept under the carpet or post frenzies occur to gain as much mileage as possible between the last viewed post and that question.
good point, if you know or believe you know please post it for us
Perhaps even more basic is the question "What is politics?" "Freedom" is what humans had before we acquired our ability to speak, which ties in with our political skills of negotiation and compromise. Of course, none of us is actually "born free," since children are heavily dependent on their parents in the first few years, so no one can physically have "freedom" until they're able to walk away from their clan/village and survive in the wild on their own.
Even if one's village government was an absolute dictatorship, it wouldn't matter much if one has the ability to walk away and not have to worry about exit visas or border guards. It would be equivalent of a child living with his parents who say "As long as you live under my roof, you follow my rules," but the child would be "free" to leave at any time - even if he's not yet 18. It would have been unlikely that a child would demand "democracy" and "freedom" under his own parents' roof, as it would be more of a love-it-or-leave-it response, "If you don't like it here, get the fuck out!" Try your luck in the wilderness.
And early human history shows that that's what people did a lot of - moving around from place to place. As long as one wasn't caged or chained up somehow, then one was "free." There was no actual law that said people had "freedom," nor was there any law that said that people didn't have "freedom." Same thing for "rights." If I have the physical ability to kill you and there's no one to stop me, then I have the "right" to kill you just because I can. Similarly, if your relatives have the physical ability to avenge your death and kill me, then they have the "right" to do so as well. If you're the roughest, toughest, and meanest - then you get to be in charge.
Just like any other animal, humans fear death, and we are instinctively driven to protect our offspring. But we also are aware of our own mortality and the fact that no matter how strong and tough we might be today, we will age, grow weaker, and die. That awareness, combined with our intelligence and political abilities could have motivated humans to find ways to ensure the survival of their offspring and the continuation of their society and culture. Even if the individual dies, one might still believe in a vicarious form of "immortality" through their progeny and the collective society of which they are part.
At some point, the idea was planted in humans' minds that there must be some powerful force greater than humanity - a Supreme Being who is rougher, tougher, and meaner than any human could ever be. That would certainly put teeth in whatever laws someone wanted to make, and if people could be made to believe it, then they would realize that even running away wouldn't do much good, since that Supreme Being could find them wherever they might go. Nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide - the polar opposite of "freedom." Despite whatever physical abilities humans still had, yet in their minds they were "not free" because they feared eternal punishment. Religion is merely another form of politics, but because of religion's intertwined relationship with society, political disputes became religious disputes as well.
Religion was probably a necessary organizing influence for the sake of human political development, so I'm not knocking religion entirely. It was a necessary evil so that we could get beyond the primitive caveman running things because he's the strongest or the meanest. Religion just invented a bigger caveman and somehow convinced people to believe it. It brought both good and bad things along with it. Bigger societies led to bigger abuses of power and worse atrocities, but as civilization became bigger and more complex, new political realities were in place.
A more complex division of labor, a larger bureaucracy under some sort of authoritarian leader or council ruling over a large number of people who were vital for the operation and continuation of the society. Those who were particularly ambitious had lots of shit they wanted to get done, and if they faced labor shortages, then the last thing they wanted to do was give anyone "freedom." If they believed they were chosen by God to be in charge, then everyone else was pretty much fucked and stuck with whatever they stuck with. There weren't very many political options available, other than open defiance and rebellion, which happened a lot.
When we talk about "rights" and "freedom" today, it's really only a compromise based on trial and error. We still want an organized society with the means and viability to continue, but the leaders in society also have to keep the people happy and pacified somehow. People have to have faith in the system for it to really operate effectively, so if they're told that they have "rights" and "freedoms" guaranteed by the Constitution, then it only works as long as it's practiced consistently and people believe it. But it all comes down to certain political realities, not necessarily what's actually written down. That's why I sometimes wonder why you keep quoting these old ancient laws all the time. If the government can't keep the gravy train rolling and keep the people content, then there will be defiance and rebellion - and no one will be able to stop it by pulling out some ancient law. In situations like that, all laws pretty much go up in smoke. But...that's politics.
As General Von Roon said in The Winds of War, all politics is dirty - democracy or dictatorship - it's all based on a single theme: Please the mob. Because that's what it's always been about all along. It's nothing but a big gang war and a crap shoot. No one is really in charge, and doubtful that there's any "Supreme Being" up there either. But another good political skill is the art of persuasion, so if you can get enough people to go along with you, then you can have your own gang. As far as "freedom" is concerned, that's about as good as it gets. Anything else is just so much legalese.
|
RE: What is Democracy? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread