Russia is teh democratcy!1!

[Serb]

This thread lacks Soviet rap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNMZ3FvGx5c

[Serb]

Hi, Vagabond!

[The Vagabond]

Hi Serb, it has been long time...

Thanks for your support, Heresson.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Yeah and freedom is a value. If you're trying to make a point, you are sadly failing.

Isn't it true that the Libertarians murdered JFK?

[Pekka]

I guess they did. No one else could coordinate Cubans, the mob, military, CIA and the underground militant homosexual armed wing of sexual revolution.

[Pekka]

But I agree with you to the extent that saying freedom doesn't mean people actually have it. What is freedom, what is the nature of it? We might think we have it and yet we'd be prisoners of that thought and completely out of touch with the reality.

And surely freedom is a subjective matter, it might vary a lot what it really is. To me, it's something that Libertarianism would suggest, I mean of course we can have lots of more freedom, but in a sense that what can be done, as in there is no perfect system so to me that settles for the best possible alternative.

I'd imagine you would have problems with some of the issues concerning property owning such as land etc and other things. Some people would say that people can't be free unless they have certain standard of living first. Some would say it doens't matter, until certain standard of living is reached.

SO there are many interpretations and opinions about it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
But I agree with you to the extent that saying freedom doesn't mean people actually have it. What is freedom, what is the nature of it? We might think we have it and yet we'd be prisoners of that thought and completely out of touch with the reality.

I agree strongly with this part of your post.

And surely freedom is a subjective matter, it might vary a lot what it really is. To me, it's something that Libertarianism would suggest, I mean of course we can have lots of more freedom, but in a sense that what can be done, as in there is no perfect system so to me that settles for the best possible alternative.

I'd imagine you would have problems with some of the issues concerning property owning such as land etc and other things. Some people would say that people can't be free unless they have certain standard of living first. Some would say it doens't matter, until certain standard of living is reached.

SO there are many interpretations and opinions about it.

The thing is that I think that you can live in a libertarian society and not be free and live in a communist society and not be free either (neither utopian I suppose). Both ideologies claim to free people, and revolutions do free people. A libertarian revolution can free people and a communist revolution can free people.

A think that my point was different, because I think that you can live in both types of societies, and any type of society for that matter and not be free, because the people of the society trust the govt too much. Even in a libertarian society with small govt the govt can still oppress you if you trust them completely, and then there's the ruling class who can oppress you also if you trust them too much.

[Pekka]

Kid, sure, these will never guarantee freedom. I never really disagreed with this. In fact, the better people get it, the less they will think about things and more they are numb, I think that's has been shown throughout the history. Not necessarily, but many do.

Of course a libertarian society can be oppressive. Just like democracy can be oppressive, even if it's processes are followed. I was saying that .. to me it's the best possible alternative as personal choice. In this notion, I would accept people being communists as well and it wouldn't just be something I should be concerned about, because it wouldn't reach me if I didn't want it to. Each to their own.

I was talking about different levels of freedom. First of all, as we talked earlier, what is freedom, the nature of it? I couldn't tell you what it really is. I'm too limited to know. But what I can do and will do is pick up some sort of features and characteristics that I consider as the opposing force of oppression, so kind of counter those charateristics. So I'm settling with some low level features, not comprehensive and complete freedom.

So for example, I consider the body to be yours. I don't think anyone as the right to do something to your body, something that you didn't agree with. Physical immunity for everyone. That means, that I can do what I want with my body. OK, this isn't some 'I want to smoke weed legally' stuff. I don't think the government or any other entity has the right to make these kind of rules. Ultimately it's case of you can't do to yourself what you'd want to in your own privacy. I'm not saying that you have the right to go out there, get high on PCP and start harrassing people. Not at all. I'm saying, that if I stay in my own home, inside these walls, I can't do anything illegal. It should be impossible. I mean what I do to myself. It's basically a government telling you, that it is forbidden for you to alter your chemical balances adn whatnot. I just disagree with it, I think it shouldn't be an issue at all, as long as I'm doing it in my own privacy.

So then other kinds of examples would follow from that. So that's one feature of what I understand freedom is. My body is my property and I decide when it comes to my body.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
I was talking about different levels of freedom. First of all, as we talked earlier, what is freedom, the nature of it? I couldn't tell you what it really is. I'm too limited to know.

We both agree that it is a subjective thing. Didn't you say that earlier. It's not about principles. I think freedom is simply what we want, or better what we should want if we had a clear and true conscience, not manipulated by those in power over us.

But what I can do and will do is pick up some sort of features and characteristics that I consider as the opposing force of oppression, so kind of counter those charateristics. So I'm settling with some low level features, not comprehensive and complete freedom.

So you mean real freedom as opposed to ideal freedom? Where does the idea of comprehensive freedom come from if it isn't real?

So for example, I consider the body to be yours. I don't think anyone as the right to do something to your body, something that you didn't agree with. Physical immunity for everyone. That means, that I can do what I want with my body. OK, this isn't some 'I want to smoke weed legally' stuff. I don't think the government or any other entity has the right to make these kind of rules. Ultimately it's case of you can't do to yourself what you'd want to in your own privacy. I'm not saying that you have the right to go out there, get high on PCP and start harrassing people. Not at all. I'm saying, that if I stay in my own home, inside these walls, I can't do anything illegal. It should be impossible. I mean what I do to myself. It's basically a government telling you, that it is forbidden for you to alter your chemical balances adn whatnot. I just disagree with it, I think it shouldn't be an issue at all, as long as I'm doing it in my own privacy.

So then other kinds of examples would follow from that. So that's one feature of what I understand freedom is. My body is my property and I decide when it comes to my body.

Now we are talking about principles (moral?). Those are not subjective, right? Explain.

[Combat Ingrid]

I just watched a very interesting documentary about Russia, "Death of a Nation":

[Pekka]

Comprehensive freedom, well I admit that I'd be too limited to know what it is. I recognize parts of it, low level feature of it and they mostly come from the examples of oppressive things. So I mean some practical features that we might be able to have, bits of it. I have bits.

What you say about freedom and being able to think for yourself without the intervention from those in power, I mean I'm definitely agreeing with this. And this is one of the things I also would say I like libertarianism. Of course they aren't perfectly aligned, but I do consider individiuality over collectivity in certain issues and settings. This has to do with defining yourself, being able to have an identity that you discover, possibly through the artefacts you choose from a bunch, because you studied them all and thne you made an educated choice and decision without the intervention of others, especially those in power who have 'invested interest' in you, that you would make 'the right decisions'. Because that's often, if not always, the case. Examples woudl be all kinds of institutions (state, religious, education and also business with marketing etc).

It's not very comprehensive yet, but I think it's the optimal situation as of now with the systems and environment we have.

About moral principles, well, I'm not quite sure what you are asking?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Pekka
Comprehensive freedom, well I admit that I'd be too limited to know what it is. I recognize parts of it, low level feature of it and they mostly come from the examples of oppressive things. So I mean some practical features that we might be able to have, bits of it. I have bits.

I don't understand the need to strive towards comprehensive freedom if that is not a real thing. How do you know you are recognizing parts of something that you can't even define?

About moral principles, well, I'm not quite sure what you are asking?

Well it seems to me, and it's partly because you call yourself a libertarian, that you believe that freedom is based on moral principles to live by. Those moral principles are objective, right? So how then can freedom be subjective. Can you explain this or am I totally off?

[Pekka]

"I don't understand the need to strive towards comprehensive freedom if that is not a real thing. How do you know you are recognizing parts of something that you can't even define?"

Well it would be impossible as well. I think that would be some sort of utopia in itself, so by very definition something we won't reach.

How can I recognize bits, well, I'll assume they are the bits of it as they'd be projected from what I consider oppression. So I get an example of oppression like say, government limits the things you can do by outlawing something. Say, government makes a law that requires you to come by every week and register. Just to check in. I'd consider that oppressive. So what I'd be looking at is to NOT have that. By not having that, what I'd consider oppressive, IMO would be then enhancing your freedom. Everything artificial that is enforced upon you, or most of it I would consider oppressive unless I have a choice.

This wouldn't mean that I think I should be able to beat up other people. I'd be directly then intervening them from having the same rights as I do.

First of all, I'm not sure those are moral principles. Second of all, I'm not... these would be practical applications to ensure the maximum amount of freedom possible in the current environment, that's what I'm after. Practical. Thus anarchism would not be one of the optimal solutions IMO.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
I just watched a very interesting documentary about Russia, "Death of a Nation":

I'm sure they can halt the population decline with immigration, provided there aren't too many progroms.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢


I'm sure they can halt the population decline with immigration, provided there aren't too many progroms.

Ah, did you watch the whole video? They are forcing non-slavics out.