Freedom

"freedom is rarely complete".

Complete freedom is a return to our pre-civilised days, where might equates to right and any person can do as they wish provided they are physically capable.

You don't want that. The endless dream of absolute freedom that pervades the US national psyche is a bit like a dog chasing its tail.

I agree. Tell that to the idiots.
 
"freedom is rarely complete".

Complete freedom is a return to our pre-civilised days, where might equates to right and any person can do as they wish provided they are physically capable.

You don't want that. The endless dream of absolute freedom that pervades the US national psyche is a bit like a dog chasing its tail.
That would not be "complete freedom", there seems to be some people that the "strong" would take from, would force to do things.

"Complete Freedom" would include those people as well. It is taking a valid form of argument, reductio ad absurdam, and creating a fallacy out of it to pretend that "complete freedom" is the same thing as owner/serf might makes right idea.
 
"freedom is rarely complete".

Complete freedom is a return to our pre-civilised days, where might equates to right and any person can do as they wish provided they are physically capable.

You don't want that. The endless dream of absolute freedom that pervades the US national psyche is a bit like a dog chasing its tail.

When I think about "freedom" I don't see it in those terms. Some nutter in Idaho, holed up in a cabin the mountains with a range of firearms isn't "free", he's just nuts. For me freedom is about allowing humans to enjoy their humanity and where there's a concept of government, especially in hierarchical form, it impinges on human freedom.
 
there seems to be some people that the "strong" would take from, would force to do things.

In absolute freedom, everyone can do as they will provided that they are physically capable.

The strong might tyrannise the weak but that is because they are physically capable, if the weak were stronger then they would too.

To ensure the weak can exercise freedoms, you have to limit the will of the strong.

Either way, someone's will get's frustrated...
 
When I think about "freedom" I don't see it in those terms. Some nutter in Idaho, holed up in a cabin the mountains with a range of firearms isn't "free", he's just nuts. For me freedom is about allowing humans to enjoy their humanity and where there's a concept of government, especially in hierarchical form, it impinges on human freedom.

Or government might assist people to enjoy their humanity, to reach their protential.

Provided that it is representitive government, it resembles a community raising a barn, the job is too big for one family so the community gathers round.
 
When I think about "freedom" I don't see it in those terms. Some nutter in Idaho, holed up in a cabin the mountains with a range of firearms isn't "free", he's just nuts. For me freedom is about allowing humans to enjoy their humanity and where there's a concept of government, especially in hierarchical form, it impinges on human freedom.

Or government might assist people to enjoy their humanity, to reach their protential.

Provided that it is representitive government, it resembles a community raising a barn, the job is too big for one family so the community gathers round.


But mostly government becomes perverted by powerful individuals and families for their own ends. Your 'perhaps' is pretty pollyanna.
 
But mostly government becomes perverted by powerful individuals and families for their own ends. Your 'perhaps' is pretty pollyanna.

Mostly? I wouldn't say mostly.

It seems strange vis a vis the Bush's and Clinton's but that is more of a blip than the norm.

Unless you're talking about some illuminati or some other such bollocks...? ;)
 
When I think about "freedom" I don't see it in those terms. Some nutter in Idaho, holed up in a cabin the mountains with a range of firearms isn't "free", he's just nuts. For me freedom is about allowing humans to enjoy their humanity and where there's a concept of government, especially in hierarchical form, it impinges on human freedom.

Or government might assist people to enjoy their humanity, to reach their protential.

Provided that it is representitive government, it resembles a community raising a barn, the job is too big for one family so the community gathers round.

I'm probably suffering a bit of cynicism about the nature of government in a liberal democracy. I think they eventually become oligarchies.
 
I'm probably suffering a bit of cynicism about the nature of government in a liberal democracy. I think they eventually become oligarchies.

It's just the calibre of government we in the anglosphere have had for so long is so weak.

If your army loses a battle do you think about privatising the army or do you retrain them to be better?

We have weak governments because adults are more interested in the goings on of Pop Idol and the rest of vapid vacuous consumer culture to demand standards from government. (there's cynicism for you...lol)
 
But mostly government becomes perverted by powerful individuals and families for their own ends. Your 'perhaps' is pretty pollyanna.

Mostly? I wouldn't say mostly.

It seems strange vis a vis the Bush's and Clinton's but that is more of a blip than the norm.

Unless you're talking about some illuminati or some other such bollocks...? ;)



Oh I am. ANd it's not bollocks.

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/bloodlines/index.htm

go learn.
 
go learn.

I've met plenty of conspiracy theorists before, you'll grow out of it...

And would please learn to use the standard quoting mechanism, oaf?

Bite me.
 
Contrarily, you'll grow into it as you leave your dopey ways.
Ok. Thanks for that. ;)



Please learn to use the standard quoting mechanism. I know new skills are scary for government employeess, but give it a try.
 
Please learn to use the standard quoting mechanism. I know new skills are scary for government employeess, but give it a try.

Why should I? :)
 
Back
Top