Yes, I prefer safety. Freedom is sometimes just a red herring. We are only bound to think freedom is everything because of propaganda and social movements in the 60s.
But I also like to know how I'm being secured. I might accept to have 1000 cameras in my house than knowing the existence of only 999 out 1000 surveillance devices.
also, I want not just my safety but also for the people I care too
Comment has been collapsed.
Problem is, the moment that you focus on one central government's safety or a country's safety in general, the individual is not safe, for the reason that he'll easily be sacrificed for the "safety" of everyone else.
The only way you can be safe as an individual (at least from the state) is if the state focuses on individual liberties and safeties, rather than focusing on a collective well-being.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm afraid of what others are capable of....human in general are all able to hurt and cause harm to others. I don't want the people close to me get hurt. period.
Comment has been collapsed.
are you saying that I'm more wrong than those who are responsible the loss of other people? or I am the weak part of a society that should be super tough having everyone being thick-skinned? I'm sorry but I take what you said as a condemnation, an accusation that I'm being weak and unsuitable for society nowadays.
Comment has been collapsed.
click here for reference read at least 60 paragraphs to understand me plainly.
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought you were dead?
edit: Nevermind. You're just 71 and in prison.
Comment has been collapsed.
And also, for future reference, don't put words in other people's mouth. It convolutes and dilutes the conversation. From one topic of conversation you spread yourself thin over a lot more ground that is completely irrelevant and unnecessary.(or make someone else spread himself thin) the result is undesirable if you trully wish to have a productive conversation.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry, but did you just call someone a Kaczynskian Leftist without knowing them and without any real evidence to that point while pointing him towards someone else's work, treating it as your own ideal, and then chastise someone else for putting words in your mouth?
Man, I'm all for having an interesting conversation about how Kaczynski's text might apply to the current situation, but good grief, man. Take it easy on folks. He was just stating his opinion. Don't "oversocialize" him further. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Strawman atack, 2.0. I referenced material for reference. I never said it was my own words, but then again, I doubt I even should be explaining this to you in the first place.
Also, I'm glad you know his words. The bombing was tragic, sure, but god damn, psychos are psychos for a reason, they have no emotion. There's only reason to their words, that's why it sounds like madness to us.
Comment has been collapsed.
My point was that if you're going to make an argument, then make it. Reference is fine, but in order to have a real conversation about something, a manifesto and an insult aren't really going to accomplish anything.
And "psychos" are all "psychos" for different reasons. Some are "emotionless" and others are completely different.
Listen, if you want to play the logic card about strawman attacks, then let's be logical. You can't really have it both ways in an argument.
Comment has been collapsed.
Imagine I call someone fearful. If that person was indeed fearful, can't you see how that state of mind might reflect in that person's actions?
Not everything that you don't like has to be labeled "name-calling". In fact, stuff like this holds itself in court when presented with valid consequences. My point was : you're afraid so you seek the protection from something "greater", in this case, the state.
How can you claim that's a personal attack and nothing more? You're just disregarding the logical conclusion to my claims because "it hurts someone's feelings to say that he's afraid or lacks self-esteem" , but hey, life doesn't care about feelings nor does pure logic. Our reasoning, tho, can be affected by states of mind.
I don't really think I should be explaining my self so thoroughly to you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well...one of the things that has been proven for millennia now is that the ability to successfully convey ideas is tantamount.
If your only "point" was to reiterate what the OP stated, then congratulations. Good going. But it sure seemed to me that you wanted to call him part of the problem. If he's part of the problem, to me, the logical solution would be to try and convert him to part of the "solution". Attacking him ad hominem is an equal fallacy to any of those you've accused the rest of us of using. If you want to play the logic game, then own it. I'm not sure the OP is the only one lacking self-esteem here.
If you believe that "life doesn't care about feelings" then that's fine. But if you think that you can't change minds, hearts, policy and the world by appealing to feelings, then I'm afraid that the OP may be a lot closer to "reality" than you quoting the Unabomber. Again, it doesn't mean his or your points are invalid, but if you can't back them up and you can't convince anyone to change their minds and actions, then you're nowhere, just like him.
You don't have to explain yourself at all. But you keep trying. Good luck espousing a view in an echo chamber.
I have always and will always listen to unpopular, well-constructed opinions based on fact from nearly anyone. I may/may not agree, but I'll listen. But I have not nor will I ever listen to anyone that has no interest in consensus, toleration, or respect for minority opinion. Those things are necessary in a successful government that offers the most freedom with some protection. That state is an ongoing battle and insanely difficult to maintain. In order to maintain it, unilateral action and thought is worthless. Despotism holds that allure, and may well be very appealing to you.
Again, good luck. If you want people to listen to ideas in order to change them, you have to speak with them and not at them.
THAT, my friend, is also a fact, proven by scientific communication studies.
On a final note, thank you for sharing the TK link. Been a long while since I thought about that, and I think there is definitely some relevance given the current goings on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Listening to minorities must always take place for the simple fact that the majority might simply be the coalition of the dumbest people supporting the same idea, or simply the less enlightened. On that , I agree with you.
However, I did not ever try to defend the OP.
All I read from him was "people are mean, they are capable of hurting you", and that he'd rather have the state protect him to a larger extent. However, the "state" can take many shapes, the only constant being that there's always SOMEONE holding the power. In one form, or another.
We all feel fear, that's what drives everyone to live in communities and to take action. We're safeguarded in communities. However, given the current state of affairs in the US, I doubt that + power holding on the part of the administration is really the answer, for the simple reason that that power will be held by someone. And that someone , like the OP stated, is capable of committing heinous acts. In fact, liberties are already being eroded in the "background" and it's allarming that people are claiming it's not enough!
You know when else it happened ? when hitler was rising to power. And guess what, there probably were people making fun of the "conspiracy theorists" as well at the time.
We all feel fear at one level or another. But the fact that someone is ready to relinquish his freedom, and by extension, everyone else's, for a virtual token of "safety" ,which is always relative itself, to the point that it can be manipulated and the perception of your liberty's "market" or "trade"-Value vs "safety" can be influenced, tells me that person feels unusually powerless to protect him/her-self. He's ready to sacrifice his liberties further, just so the "state" can have his back covered to a larger degree.
And that, to me, is a problem. Because, with the Terror campaign rampart in the world nowadays, I am certain to see the majority aligning itself to take away my liberties by extension of the rule to the universal-personal level.
So yes, I am fearful of that myself.
Thanks for the level-headed response. Your innitial responses were troll posts tho, so I won't take it from you talking about two faces or whatever. We're both hypocrites on this one.
Comment has been collapsed.
As an additional note of interest (to me anyway), it became apparent that TK was unable to live on his own without subsidy. His own "freedom" was still dependent on societal milk.
Complete freedom is an ugly, ugly state. As the famous ...brutish and short quote suggests. I think most of us believe in a middle ground. Maintaining that amongst wolves and thieves is the trick.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. We have a saying here in portugal : "The virtue lies in the middle" but then again , we just recently overcame a brutish regime in 1974, and phrases such as "I'm getting by" are still the norm, which reflects the poverty the porpulation faced.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would be happy with one extreme case in the form of the Matrix. Ultimate loss of freedom and control in the real world, kept alive on life support, kept unconscious to ensure safety. At the same time, ultimate freedom in the virtual world, no restrictions, no consequences.
As long as I am experiencing freedom while kept reasonably safe, I am satisfied with the situation. As soon as I feel restricted or oppressed, I will be much less happy with the it. Being observed constantly and held to someone else's standards would almost certainly leave me in the latter category.
Comment has been collapsed.
One day, the residents of the current Matrix will create their own matrix to contain the subversive elements of their society. Which will, in turn, eventually believe they are completely free and create a Matrix of their own. >.<
Comment has been collapsed.
You say that, but do you truly understand the implications of it? I can come along and rape and murder your entire family if I choose to. Steal everything in sight, dump toxic waste and poison in water supplies and so on. If humans could exercise self discipline and work for the greater good naturally, we wouldnt need to be told what to do or what not to do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey, shit happens.
During that course of events or after it I could go and do the same thing to you...or die...
It doesn't matter, people die and are hurt all the time. The only way to make a truly safe society is to give everyone in the world a lobotomy(Ok, not true. But my point is that you'd have to change the way people think and act at their core to make a truly safe society)
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed, shit does happen and its because of this that its always nice to have a chance to receive help. Just because the natural order of things is chaos and anarchy doesn't automatically mean its the best thing. While you may or may not enjoy the murdering and raping of people, Id rather be protected from such chaos. The choices are not total chaos or total control and yet you make it sound like those are the only ones, or at least thats how I am following the tone of your post. Its about a reasonable exchange, and mitigation of risks. The occasion violent act vs a state of total and complete fear for your entire life.
I dont know anyone that expects a truly and 100% safe life or environment, however I assume you and everyone here expects a reasonable amount of safety. The ability for you to sleep in your bed without the risk of having your throat slit is a reasonable request is it not? People beg and clamor for absolute freedom for all, but at the same time demand that only they are granted these things. Doesnt much sound like freedom to me.
Have you been to a war ravaged region? Seen combat? Young children fantasize about such things, and when they grow older they join armies and hope to see combat. When they come back, if they do, how many wish to go back and relive their campaigns? Imagine a total and merciless war in your city going on everynight. Its not something you should want just because you cant stand being told what to do or not do.
Granted, no one wants to be enslaved or controlled completely, some might even hate it if its suggested they behave a certain way. Im not saying we need more control over our lives because Im not in favor of it at all. however, some form of control must be in place. A set of guidelines and rules for how to behave is required for any society to function, even hunter-gatherers and animals have some semblance of order.
The problem currently is that governments have overstepped the line that determines what is reasonable in exchange for a reasonable amount of protection. Having companies inspect an airplane for defects is a reasonable request to saves millions of lives. Having people strip naked to board an airplane is not and has saved MAYBE a thousand lives. Banning chemical weapons from being given to the public? Good thing. Banning everything that could be used as a weapon? To far.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find anarchy good, but in this sense: I think anarchy is a temporary state when one system, one order transitions into another one. You can't have it all the time. Sooner or later some kinds of laws or just common sense will be set up and thus end it. Also, it's something one can use to bring some justice, the true one, since law is often blinded, shackled or just circumvented. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
According to Hobbes i think we created society. So we traded our freedom to do everything we want (killing other people for food and so on) for security. So we kind of made a social contract in which we give this bit of freedom to gain the security no one will do this.
Please correct me if im wrong :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. You are correct, roughly. But there have been many since then that have expounded and argued nuance/major points on Hobbesian theory. Read Locke, Mill, Rousseau. Later Max Weber and even Christopher Lasch. They also cover what constitutes rights and what, exactly (property? people?) need to be protected.
Comment has been collapsed.
In a "perfect world"/utopia/libertarian ideal, people would be understanding of each other and the planet they live on and nice to each other and the planet they live on. And then pure anarchy would work better than anything else we ever try to regulate. It would not actually be "perfect" (natural disasters and other things over which we have no control will still cause pain and destroy lives), and it would never be "fair" (resources are limited, and needs and wants vary), but it would be as close as is humanly possible to get to "perfect". The "understanding" part of it is essential though, and it's usually there that things start to break down. And then people become not nice to each other and shit gets totally fucked. And so, since I acknowledge that people aren't capable of being completely understanding of one another and the planet that they live on, I settle for a limited form of government whereby there are rules set in place to discourage shit from happening. Ideally though, I'd like pure anarchy.
Comment has been collapsed.
BANG BANG - someone who complied with his request.
Comment has been collapsed.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs"
Comment has been collapsed.
Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were actually ok plotwise but you'd have 50 pages of a character ranting and the philosophy isn't great.
Comment has been collapsed.
"quiet noob" ? really do you even understand what I'm trying to say here?
I'm from Turkey and people here are fighting for freedom against the dictator government putting their lives in the line..
There was a thread asking about what's going on here started by a SG mod and it was closed for "being political". I guess you can see which side SG and pretty much every forum on the net are taking on this matter, coz we need to be "safe" even while we are online..
Can you see the "irony" now?
Comment has been collapsed.
While we use 1984 as a prime example of the top most/highest level of government intrusion and indoctrination, im positive that in the future, we will put that to shame and it will be used as an example of absolute freedom.
Think on that for awhile.
On topic or rather more to the point though, the more and more you try and control people, the more they lash out and turn violent. Anyone thinking that 0 would ever work out, clearly has no idea about eh implications that would have, or the problems that would arise. Only way a 0 would ever work, is if the population was 1.
Currently, the US and UK are about a 7 I guess. When we need a fair and balanced 5.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are very astute in regard to past and current ideas about anarchism and libertarian economies in a political vacuum.
There has to be a real (using the term literally) framework for any ideal type. One of the problems with contrarian ideal types that include the two above is that adoptees of the theories rarely flesh out a plan beyond a criticism of the status quo. My favorite recent example would be the abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Good post PPG.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its an easy conclusion if you follow history. Also, If the world were to fall into total anarchy in a century, Im sure someone would say the exact same thing about a number of other books. Let enough time pass and any prediction can come true.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like a self-fulfilling prophecy? You say something will happen and it will happen, because everyone is aware of it. If you keep it to yourself, nothing will happen, since no one knows about it and thus events aren't inclined to lead to it. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
self fulfilling prophecy happens because you said it. IE I predict you will die tomorrow, so you panic about it, and end up having a heart attack. Im referring to a time fulfilled prophecy, for example, You are going to die. Might not die for 70 years or more if medical science allows it. But one day, you will die. Some how and in some way you will die.
Writing a book about a society that is controlled to such a degree is merely that, a thought taken to extremes that, giving enough time, is bound to become true in one fashion or another. Tt didnt happen in 1984(in the real world), hasnt happened yet (contrary to the current thoughts on it), and might not happen for another thousand years.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sacrificing as little freedom as possible in order to maintain enough safety to enable stability should be the goal of a good government by my opinion and many political thinkers that shaped many Western democracies.
An ideal type might include the necessities of equal voice, community rule over centralized government and a moral code that preserves the cultural community while simultaneously protecting the individual.
This forum is rare in its international representation, so I'd be curious about what folks that have learned outside of the Western tradition of politics might have to add. Some of the basics are the same, I know, but I'm ignorant to much of the rest.
Comment has been collapsed.
Omg I just deleted my own (previous) comment... what a fucking moron I am...
I talked about the necessary difference between rights and privileges, a line that today is unfortunately too thin to make a clear distinction between these two things...
To quote Eephus' answer: "Right. But remember too, that the idea of what are "inalienable rights" or "God given rights" or "universal rights" has changed drastically since Hobbes. There are some things we consider rights now that were previously considered privileges. I'm not being contrarian here, because you're right. There is a difference between a right and a privilege, but a privilege can sometimes become a right over time."
I wanted to number these "God Given rights"...
P.S. I'm really sorry, I somehow misclicked and deleted post...
Comment has been collapsed.
lol. I saw part of it. No biggie.
One of the absolutely brilliant things about this country's founding documents is that they were broad and simple. Go look at founding documents in a lot of states (and States) and they are a disaster.
Life and Liberty seemed to be no-brainers at the time. The "pursuit of happiness" was a different matter, as the founders here were big Locke fanboys, and "property" almost made it into the final draft.
But I believe there are others I would personally add, including most if not all of the Bill of Rights (Speech, Press, Assembly and legal Association, Fair trial by Jury, Self-Protection by reasonable means) as well as an extension of life, which would be health (in a broad sense - meaning the right not to be inflicted on by the government or private parties a perpetual state of ill-being, or knowing or negligent actions that would cause a misery of mind, body or spirit).
But honestly, I think the bigger question goes up beyond the micro-conversation about rights vs. privileges, and needs (especially right now) to concentrate on the core of what should necessarily by yielded in the name of safety. Recently, demagoguery from all sides has exacerbated the problem of incremental erosive policy (covert and overt) that seems to have lost sight of this core.
This is the responsibility of both the constituency and the leadership, and I think we're seeing some less than sharp action on either part to have hard, earnest discussion.
That being said, it would be myopic folly to assume that this sort of contentiousness hasn't occurred before our time. Just with different circumstances and technology.
I ramblin'!
Comment has been collapsed.
You're never safe, but with freedom, you can at least protect yourself to your most capability. The way the government is and the standards they have for police officers, I do not want the government to be in any shape or form attempt to be my "protector." Big brother now a days is more like a terrible lawyer you meet in the bar. They say their intentions are to help you, but in the end they are really just trying to fuck you over for their benefit.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not very appreciate what Obama and his agenda approach right now. They trying take our right away, Similar to 1984 n' Animal Farm . . It fact match concept we see it today. I would say America are revved up start revolutionary war again I am certain sure it will happen because They provoke us to massacre every of us who fight to protect the Constitution and Country we loved. They want give white flag to Al-Qleada. Right now, We have Radical Islam in White House.
Oh yea if you see something with my comment, don't complain . . remember We have freedom of speech and freedom of mind to expression of our opinion. just leave it and let other think and decide.
infamous quote from Heroes "They may one of us or one of them" I do not CARE if you snitch to liberal or communist people on us, We are not FEAR NONE! We will victory once again like 1776.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would like to think this is a satirical post, sadly, working around people that listen to fox and other sources of "truth, justice, and the TRUE American way", well... I wouldnt bet on it.
Hate to break it to ya but Obama is hardly anymore to blame then any other twat that has been or will be in office. Presidents are hardly anymore of a figure head then the Queen in the UK.
“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross,”
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not exactly true. The very few spaghetti western style shootouts that actually happened were police versus bandits, except like 2. And in all cases the offenders were "brought to justice"
The old west was not Red Dead Redemption.
Comment has been collapsed.
70 Comments - Last post 33 seconds ago by orono
12 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by orono
762 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by OwieczkaDollyv21
41 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by VicViperV
17 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by SeaGoblin
345 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Vasharal
1,041 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by sensualshakti
96 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Kappaking
495 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by GreyF0xx
68 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by malabagaa
2,157 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by Juanmivs
533 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by DrTenma
1,043 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by Bubles
412 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by steveywonder75
I'll add ideas and that later on. I'm going to bed now.
I will just leave this quote here. Party on.
But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.
So well. For now, to what extent are you comfortable with goverments stepping on and dictating rules and guidelines? Would you accept being monitored if that meant that you'd be safer?
If 10 was a society of 1984's or We's style and 0 no organization at all, which one would you feel more identified with?
Do you think that Anarchism, anarcocapitalism or anarcoliberalism are viable options of gestioning (or well, not doing so) a human society?
Do you agree with the concept that we, human's, are sociable animals? That the only way for us to live is in society, that polis are the most perfect way of organizing oneselves?
Don't have much time now, I've glanced through some answers but will try to adress them later on. Thanks for all the input.
Comment has been collapsed.