Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

"Freedom": revenge against those who want order


Why is it that some topics and areas of discussion are shut down prematurely by Liberals when they dont like the sound of them?

Because your views are absolutely incompatible with theirs. 

I agree with that. I am just of the opinion that someone who holds beliefs should be prepared to have them challenged, not shy away from debate declaring the challenge a label with negative connotations and therefore undebatable. Morons.

No. It is exactly because there is no debate, as they have found with several items of concern, that they resort to shut down mode. The debates are long over. They lost the moral and intellectual ground, but they hold the seats of power in trade.

On a surface niceness level, many liberal ideas DO work.  It's hard to get along with people if one party is vocal about not liking the other party for one reason or another, so on a surface level there appears to be less acrimony if the vocal party is caused to shut up.

The problem is the deeper level.  Because not only have the underlying problems that caused the acrimony in the first place not been addressed, they've been prevented from BEING addressed or even acknowledged.

You can sit with the drum circle and sing Kumbaya all day long.  The problems typically don't start until darkness falls.

Right now it's twilight.

Hmm, in the bigger order of things, the Anglo-American scheme is a crock of shit, it preaches a false sense of freedom, like that of a pre-pubescent child. I need everything, right now. Fuck that, be adults.

Freedom is the capability of choosing the best path. The democratic man understands this capability as a right, the socialist as a rationalization  obtainable through education.

The problem with the socialist and left is the belief that at our implicit level, we get things all wrong, so we need to create systems to manage (our) nature. It's akin to the Original Sin (instinct) and Salvation (society) concepts of Christianity.

I would say that, innately, freedom is a quality of the natural state of all things.

Now to impose freedom is another idea altogether. As an obvious example goes, if everyone has total freedom then potentially different people want mutually exclusive things and their respective freedoms 'cancel each other out'.

Of course, in such a case, they are both still perfectly free to try, and I would submit that this is where the distinction between wisdom and ignorance enters play. Ultimately there are limits, and wisdom is having impeccable understanding/vision of these limits. It is by virtue of limits that, fundamentally, anything may even exist in the first place - the character of one's person is this way not that way, it possesses definition, uniqueness.

The absence of definition is no magical "infinity" or "oneness" but rather can be nothing other than a homogeneous blob of undifferentiated oneness. Similarly, to, as the saying goes, know the meaning of life, this does not mean that you will necessarily live well, for it does not rob you of your free will. It seems that what is conventionally referred to as "freedom" has to do not with trying--for to affirm that the capacity to try is to be sought is to affirm that it is not innate but actually lacking in the first place--but rather it has to do with trying to learn how to try better. What is sought is not the capacity for choice, where by definition any decision is permissible (insofar as choice is distinct from predetermination), but rather what is sought is the capacity to consistently choose in a healthy manner, which includes acting with cohesion, without one's various desires being mutually contradictory tugging one in different directions, as well as in fact being actually correct in how one perceives the situation, being correct in one's foresight of the resulting consequences of one's action. And what constitutes "a healthy manner" is also an important part of the equation!

Omnipotent choice was never on the table, no matter how people in haste perceive the constitution, as to wit the government imposes many laws indeed. Of course even here one is still free to try illegal things, but with the promise of punishment, in the name of deterrence.

I've noticed that most media definitely seems to portray freedom as against being told what to do. Technically the most "free" people on earth are homeless hermits who are not forced to do anything, but that's no real way to live. We also tend to see freedom as not encroaching on others, even if they are harming themselves. Life is a constant quest for improvement, so if you are an ugly, fat uneducated druggy living off benefits then either reform yourself and improve, putting yourself towards some sort of useful skill or drop dead please, but don't drag the rest down with you. Our society is obsessed with giving everyone their own comfortable sphere of control - don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you. As such we have reverted to those magic words: lowest common denomenator. It's why we keep repeatedly offending rapists and poedophiles alive, it's why we keep people in deep comas strapped into expensive machines, why we pay to let prisoners sit around and have butt sex with each other all day, and it is why the weak and stupid have outbred the strong and intelligent.  Society in advanced nations is great if you are useless and stupid, but the superior are surpressed and powerless. Of course - you're "free" to make as much money as you can be bothered to and to do bench presses to your arms balloon out but that's about it really.

I found someone else with a diagnosis and cure strategy:

Perfect solutions tyrannize, and life is too complex for experts to manage. That remains true even when we are promised a system of liberation based on expert knowledge. More and more, it seems that among us:

  • Freedom means comprehensive control of human relations so we don't oppress each other.
  • Equality means rule by irresponsible and unrepresentative elites. Otherwise there's no one to keep us equal.
  • Inclusiveness means distinctions can't be allowed to matter, so they have to be destroyed or neutered.
  • Democracy means everyone has to be powerless. Otherwise, some would be more powerful than others and that wouldn't be democratic.
  • Giving people what they want means destroying the goods they care about most, since those goods can't be equal, optional, and externally manageable.
  • Reason means submission of the mind and will to expert pronouncements that always turn out to promote the power and authority of experts and bureaucrats.
  • Diversity means that people attached to nonliberal principles must be demonized as bigots and fundamentalists.

To avoid such a result, politics must be based on recognitions that are more realistic and less mindlessly simple:

  • Not everything can be reduced to a clear rational system, and not all impulses are equally good.
  • Goods and goals are partly social, since what's on offer and what it's worth depends partly on other people.
  • Knowledge is partly local, individual, and inarticulate, since not everything can be made explicit, noted down, and incorporated into expertise.
  • For that reason, much of our knowledge comes from experience and the resulting growth of habits that work.
  • More generally, our society learns through tradition, and as social beings we learn through participation in the traditions of our society.


Our society is obsessed with giving everyone their own comfortable sphere of control - don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you.

This is how mobs are formed: none of us wants to be told what to do, so we're going to band together and destroy those who are in charge. And then what? Who knows.