Illusion of freedom and the exercize of power

[Kidlicious]

I read.

[Pekka]

Kid, it wasn't meant to you though.

[Kidlicious]

I know, just saying. If people don't read a post why even say anything.

[Pekka]

Well I think people read illusion of freedm, get excited to hear about a new conspiracy story, then go on and in the first few paragraphs crazy guy says voting hasn't got much to do with freedom.

Then they post, "it's the cornerstone of freedom" or "a big part of it". Even more so, the act of voting is somehow freedom. It's really weird, I know people often think this is true but I don't know where they really come from with this stuff. Maybe school told them so.

But what they should have taught is that voting is an important part of democracy. That statement is correct. But other than that, I think it is borderline dangerous that it is so difficult ot separate ideologies, concepts and everything that is supposed to be associated with it.

I think many confuse the meaning of freedom and democracy altogether. It's like "I can vote, therefor I am free". This I think has lots to do with the fact, that it's just seen as a symbol of free society, which really doesnt' mean anything. And we see this crap countries not being able to vote, so we make the mistake to think that the difference is the act of voting.

I mean people go voting and say "I'm exercizing my freedom". Well.. ok... I'd say you're just using your right to cast a vote in this political thing. That's about it. Usually the same people think they are free because they don't get beaten when in the queue for the voting booth, because that happens in some other countries. That's somehow "freedom" to not get beat up and intimidated in one situation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm talking about reality, not political idealism. I don't think we are on the same page here.

There is no objective "reality", certainly not when it comes to power. What power somoene else has over you is decided by you - each individual decides what they want, and assign power to others on that basis.

For example, someone resigned to die themselves can;t be made to do anything under threat of death, which for individuals who wish to live is the worst imposition possible. Of course, if that person wants others to live, then they can be forced to act by usinf those others as leverage.

So when asking yourself who has power, the relevant question is whom individuals are willing to give power based on their own desires and values.

[Kidlicious]

It's much more complicated than this. Some of the things you are saying are too simple and wrong. But I'll entertain you.

Originally posted by GePap
There is no objective "reality", certainly not when it comes to power. What power somoene else has over you is decided by you - each individual decides what they want, and assign power to others on that basis.

Don't other people assign power over us though? Wasn't my boss hired by his boss? I realize that I can choose not to work there, but I don't see the power there.

For example, someone resigned to die themselves can;t be made to do anything under threat of death, which for individuals who wish to live is the worst imposition possible. Of course, if that person wants others to live, then they can be forced to act by usinf those others as leverage.

Assuming we all want to live, we have to accept those who have power over us. This is power to you? Why?

So when asking yourself who has power, the relevant question is whom individuals are willing to give power based on their own desires and values.

I was asking who rules. You said power is different from that. The way you try to make it sound the system is perfect and we have a perfect govt right? I really don't understand.

[Kidlicious]

dp

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Don't other people assign power over us though? Wasn't my boss hired by his boss? I realize that I can choose not to work there, but I don't see the power there.

Power: 1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.

If you can act, you have power. Making a choice is power. Choosing not to work there is a choice, and therefore an excersice in power.

It may seem "simple", but everything begins simple. You may say its complex, but if you don't understand the simple underpinning of the system, how can you possibly really understand the system?

Assuming we all want to live, we have to accept those who have power over us. This is power to you? Why?

I don't make that assuptions because it is a demostrably false assumption.

I ask you a simple question - how does a dictator stay in power? Any adult human being is strong enough to kill another human being with their bare hands - add weapons to the mix, it becomes even more obvious that any adult is a deadly threat to another. Why don't the minions of some tyrant just kill him in his sleep? What keeps them being minions? fear of whom? The tyrant personally is not able to keep control physically, so then, fear of whom? Other minons? But why would those minions be more loyal than you, less willing to remove the tyrant??

Its is ones ideas, ones values, and ones desires that shape our fears. Change your values, your desires, and your fears, and what is power over you changes. A man who wants a house will fear foreclosure and the bank that may take it away. A man who does not want a house has no reason to fear the bank, and so forth.

I was asking who rules. You said power is different from that. The way you try to make it sound the system is perfect and we have a perfect govt right? I really don't understand.

I made no statement about ideal governance. I made a statement about legitimacy, or the willingness of people to submit to others.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Power: 1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.

If you can act, you have power. Making a choice is power. Choosing not to work there is a choice, and therefore an excersice in power.

True you always have a choice to make. So you are always free? Free is a relative term. You always have some freedom, but you are still not free.

It may seem "simple", but everything begins simple. You may say its complex, but if you don't understand the simple underpinning of the system, how can you possibly really understand the system?

I don't think I fully understand the system. I doubt that I full understand even the underpinning of the system. And probably most people don't. That's really part of the problem. It's so complex. Complexity makes us powerless.

Assuming we all want to live, we have to accept those who have power over us. This is power to you? Why?

I don't make that assuptions because it is a demostrably false assumption.

Well I want to live, Pekka wants to live, generally people want to live. So what point is there to consider the situation where we don't want to live?

I ask you a simple question - how does a dictator stay in power? Any adult human being is strong enough to kill another human being with their bare hands - add weapons to the mix, it becomes even more obvious that any adult is a deadly threat to another. Why don't the minions of some tyrant just kill him in his sleep? What keeps them being minions? fear of whom? The tyrant personally is not able to keep control physically, so then, fear of whom? Other minons? But why would those minions be more loyal than you, less willing to remove the tyrant??

The question is simple, and the answer is simple. I would not assasinate the dictator because I might fail and be totured and executed. I have no control over the other subjects and none of them has control over me. Are you suggesting that I should no longer want to live so that I can remove the dictator? How exactly do I do that? I don't have the power to do that.

Its is ones ideas, ones values, and ones desires that shape our fears. Change your values, your desires, and your fears, and what is power over you changes. A man who wants a house will fear foreclosure and the bank that may take it away. A man who does not want a house has no reason to fear the bank, and so forth.

Yes, how does one change their desires and exactly what is the point of doing that?

I made no statement about ideal governance. I made a statement about legitimacy, or the willingness of people to submit to others.

Since rulers exploit our fears we have power over them? Still not making any sense.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious

True you always have a choice to make. So you are always free? Free is a relative term. You always have some freedom, but you are still not free.

Everyone is free to do anything they want, as long as they understand that any action they take will lead to some consequence.

Well I want to live, Pekka wants to live, generally people want to live. So what point is there to consider the situation where we don't want to live?

If you fail to consider those situation, you can't claim to have a system to explain things worth a damn.

The question is simple, and the answer is simple. I would not assasinate the dictator because I might fail and be totured and executed.

Wrong answer, because you fail to explain why you should fear to be tortured. That was part of the whole question, why would anyone besides you still follow the dictator? And the dictator as a single individual has no real better change against you than you against them.

Yes, how does one change their desires and exactly what is the point of doing that?

You are free to change your desires at whim. As to the point, well, what is the point of your current desires?

Since rulers exploit our fears we have power over them? Still not making any sense.

You give them power over you, thought I doubt they give you power over them.

[Kidlicious]

What about not desiring freedom any longer? Then we are free? Like they are free in NK?

Originally posted by GePap
Everyone is free to do anything they want, as long as they understand that any action they take will lead to some consequence.

The are ABLE to do it. If that's what you call freedom then maybe we should agree to either talk about what you are ABLE to do and what you can reasonably do with out severe consequences. If we are just going to talk about what we are ABLE to do I don't see the point, and I don't think that is the kind of freedom Pekka is referring to. I certainly wasn't. I want to be ABLE to do something and I want it to be what I WANT to do. That is, I want the consequences to be reasonable.

Well I want to live, Pekka wants to live, generally people want to live. So what point is there to consider the situation where we don't want to live?

If you fail to consider those situation, you can't claim to have a system to explain things worth a damn.

Ok so assuming I am willing to die, then I can do somethings, but what does it matter, I'll probably just kill myself.

The question is simple, and the answer is simple. I would not assasinate the dictator because I might fail and be totured and executed.

Wrong answer, because you fail to explain why you should fear to be tortured. That was part of the whole question, why would anyone besides you still follow the dictator? And the dictator as a single individual has no real better change against you than you against them.

Sorry, I don't have an explaination as to why I don't want to be totured. I just don't. Most people don't. I don't think they have an explaination either.

Yes, how does one change their desires and exactly what is the point of doing that?

You are free to change your desires at whim.

I very well be free, depending on how you define the word, however, I am definitely not ABLE to change my desires. Not at a whim of course. I mean I could go to a drug treatment center and work a program there so that I wont desire drugs anymore, but that's about all I can do with regard to my desires.

As to the point, well, what is the point of your current desires?

I don't know. Do you?

You give them power over you, thought I doubt they give you power over them.

I have accepted their power over me because of the conscequences involved. I'll grant you this, I am free to kill myself or do something that will result in my death. I think we really want more than that though. Is both life and freedom too much to ask?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Ok so assuming I am willing to die, then I can do somethings, but what does it matter, I'll probably just kill myself.

You still did what you wanted though.

Sorry, I don't have an explaination as to why I don't want to be totured. I just don't. Most people don't. I don't think they have an explaination either.

I wasn;t asking for an explination of why you would not want to be tortured, I was asking you WHO would be doing the torture, why anyone else would be willing to torture you in behalf of the tyrant if that person is a tyrant who limits their freedom.

I very well be free, depending on how you define the word, however, I am definitely not ABLE to change my desires. Not at a whim of course. I mean I could go to a drug treatment center and work a program there so that I wont desire drugs anymore, but that's about all I can do with regard to my desires.

Of course you are free to change your desires. You want something at one point, and not at another. You may desire coffee at one point of the day, then change that to a desire for some other drink, or food, or whatever. The principle works similarly for grander aims.

AS for your example, that is not a desire, but a chemical dependency, something that lies outside of your conscious control.

I don't know.

Then get cracking. As they say, "know thyself."

I have accepted their power over me because of the conscequences involved. I'll grant you this, I am free to kill myself or do something that will result in my death. I think we really want more than that though. Is both life and freedom too much to ask?

It is not always a question of life and death - that is the issue simply at its most extreme.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
You still did what you wanted though.

Why do I want to die though? Am I not getting my desires met or am I mentally ill. Perhaps in any case I am free, but in the case where I'm not getting my desires met I don't think that is freedom. Let's just say that I would be more free living and having my desires met.

Sorry, I don't have an explaination as to why I don't want to be totured. I just don't. Most people don't. I don't think they have an explaination either.

I wasn;t asking for an explination of why you would not want to be tortured, I was asking you WHO would be doing the torture, why anyone else would be willing to torture you in behalf of the tyrant if that person is a tyrant who limits their freedom.

I imagine the people who do that sort of thing are psychopaths. Lucky for them. They get their dream job, and it's all legal. I doubt if they changed their desires though. Are you saying that a person who wasn't a psychopath would have the job and actually desires that type of work?

I very well be free, depending on how you define the word, however, I am definitely not ABLE to change my desires. Not at a whim of course. I mean I could go to a drug treatment center and work a program there so that I wont desire drugs anymore, but that's about all I can do with regard to my desires.

Of course you are free to change your desires. You want something at one point, and not at another. You may desire coffee at one point of the day, then change that to a desire for some other drink, or food, or whatever. The principle works similarly for grander aims.

I don't change my desire. If I want coffee I just want coffee. I don't plan to want coffee and then go about executing a plan. Do you operate that way?

AS for your example, that is not a desire, but a chemical dependency, something that lies outside of your conscious control.

All of my desires lie outside of my control. The difference is that if I have a chemical dependency I am mentally ill and I can get help. The only way to change a normal desire is brainwashing.

I don't know.

Then get cracking. As they say, "know thyself."

I can say "I want money" and the point is "I like money." Why? "To buy things." What comes after that? I don't know. I suppose I could go on for a little while, but the truth is I don't know why I REALLY desire things. That's a very deep question.

It is not always a question of life and death - that is the issue simply at its most extreme.

If you want to be totally free in the way that you are advocating it certainly does mean death or a life that most people don't really want to live.

It comes down to this. If a person were to live doing whatever they wanted to do regardless of the consequences then they are free to a certain degree. However, if you remove the consequences they are freer. Aren't they?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It comes down to this. If a person were to live doing whatever they wanted to do regardless of the consequences then they are free to a certain degree. However, if you remove the consequences they are freer. Aren't they?

They might think themselves more free because people like being able to act wiothout consequence, but they are not actually more or less free.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
They might think themselves more free because people like being able to act wiothout consequence, but they are not actually more or less free.

That's a blatantly false statement. The less consequences we have for the actions that we desire to take the more free we are. Enough of this nonsense.

I challenge your claim that we are free because the rulers give us what we want. They don't give us everything we want, or everything they can give us for that matter. They give us just enough so that we won't overthrow them, make us think that what they gave us is worth more than it is, and take the rest for themselves. Furthermore, they take action to increase the cost of replacing them whenever they can, and make us think that the cost is higher than it actually is. What do you say to that?