Hi, I’m new to the board. I’ve actually perused this board quite often and really like many of the threads and topics. Like many, I am fascinated with Joker’s unorthodox ideas of the nature of the goverment and man and so forth. I didn’t want to just pose this question to him although it does pertain to his views. My question is why man sees a government as inhibiting his freedom? In other words, if a man so chooses, wishes to rape, stab, and steal from others, how can the government physically stop him? In my views they can’t which ultimately leads to the idea that one sees the government symbolizing the consequences of such actions. What I was wondering was that isn’t a man who so chooses not to obey the governemnt’s laws, norms, and morals, free? Why should a man who so chooses to kill or harm others stop just because they live in a society where they’re is a government. So what there will be consequences (legally) for commiting acts agains the law, why should that be a deterrence. If a man sees himself as free, no mundane consequence can nor should stop them from exacting their freedom as they so choose on others? I think those, like Joker, who adhere to the policy of anarchy see this as a consequence free rule. I however fail to see the connection. Hypothetically, if a man rapes a four year old girl he may be subjugated to capital punishment or other legal crimes under governmental punishment. If under an anarchal rule, hypothetically, the familiy members may exact their own justice towards the man. Both types of rules seem to have clear definitions of what can or cannot be done. The difference seems to be that anarchy’s rules are not verbalized or written down, however consequences will abound. I don’t see how in any type of anarchy, consequences for one’s actions will not occur. I will wrap up this post by stating my final and real question. Why should fear or governmental consequences stop one who wishes to be free, regardless of societal norms and standars?
’
I understand that when pertaining to those who adhere to the control. What I meant was the fact that if people see the government’s sense of morality and norms as a snese of control, then they have enough cognition not to follow them. If one wishes to live their life by raping, murdering, and stealing I don’t see how the government is “holding” them back because there is a set of consequences to those actions (ie the law). One who so chooses this lifestyle has enough cognition to evade the law and live their life in such a Dionysian manner. Those who don’t and yet complain that the government are enslaving them seem to think that they should be able to commit these actions with consequences, thus leading to anarchy. I am wondering why they just don’t say the proverbial, “who gives a …” and commit the actions anyway.
’
I believe your question is bad or it discredits any practical conception of freedom with respect to government actions. People who praise freedom are not all rapists and murderers.
– because “governmental consequences” are violations of freedom.
I disagree. A true moralist does not believe man need’s government to keep him safe from himself. A true moralist believes that men, when left to their own devices, are inherently ‘good’. That only when put into positions of power and sovereignity over or under other men will they corrupt.
’
…and a families revenge against the rapist of their daughter in your definition is a violation of freedom. In fact anything that has consequences is a violation of freedom by that definition. Dying of suffocation is a violation of my freedom to breathe without oxygen.
Freedom is not something that can be shelled out and bartered for. Governments can neither give or take away freedoms. I say all men are free. Enslavement is an illusion. The government and religious authorities only want you to believe that you are enslaved. Their power is in the belief of enslavement. Imagine if every one knew that they were in control of their own lives, that they can do whatever they want, churches and governments would be in dire straights, indeed. I will also go as far as saying that when one chooses to submit to an authority they are practicing their freedom.
Correct.
Incorrect.
We are talking about humans interacting with humans.
If you want to believe that, fine – believe it.
Would it come as a surprise if slaves rose up in opposition to your belief?
I would rather imagine that people believed they had a right to be in control of their own lives.
That will not take you very far at all because whether one chooses to submit or not, the actions of governments are generally the same.
I look at governments and market economies as heavily repressed formulas of mechanism that revolves around pipe dreams of utopias perpetuated by religionism.
Men become enslaved through the ambitions that governments and markets put out all the while their natural inclinations of wild emotion become suppressed through civility or forced docility by enforced legislative means.
A market society can’t survive without deception, forced labor and classism.
As a rule market societies only allow the freedom of a few to prevail while it inhibits large amounts of deception on the rest making them believe that they are free or that they can be free through rough labor.
If you look at the history of punishment and law over a span of any given civilization the final goal is to always strip man of his natural wild emotions and instincts in creating him into a caricature of man by mechanical manufactured moral idealism followed by elaborate delusions of salvation for future generations.
Over a period of time men no longer look like men but instead become to be empty mechanical vessels ready to be assimilated in the machine of the market for a universal cause that has never existed and for false senses of security that strips them of their natural freedoms given to them by birth. ( By Nature.)
Very easily. Through immoral means of execution and imprisonment but unfortunately for the government these forms of repressing violent behaviors puts them in a contradiction of using the same forces of violence that they solely pronounce to be against.
This is what I mean when I say that true morality is nonexistent but instead morality is just another form of immorality in disguise in the fulfillment of a will to power.
The will to power comes in many disguises and moral deception is one of them but if we understand morality as just another predatory motive of immorality in the act of survival then where exactly does the government or moralists inhibit their absolute universal “rights” from which they rule over other men where they condemn all other actions contrary to their own?
If we look at the history of centralized state governments their underlying power always comes from hysteria, superstition, mythology, religion, and religious pronouncements of heresy in which they punish or kill others by some twisted nonexistent exaltation of a conceptual understanding of which is the “sacred” good. ( This is the same for modern industrial nations.)
As long as he doesn’t get caught, sure.
I have always said that freedom exists only when the individual has absolute control of himself and his enviroment whether it is through violence or cooperation.( Depending on what form of action the individual wants to choose for themselves.)
What we call freedom amongst our idols in civilization isn’t freedom at all. It is manufactured freedom by the state which blackmails people to sell their labor for a price. ( Such a manufactured form of freedom is a elaborate form of slavery in disguise at the state’s disposal for absolute control.)
Do you want to keep eating lavishly and have all the pleasures we the state put out? Keep selling us your labor or else.
( Blackmail followed by clever elaborate forms of psychological warfare.) - Example.
( Look into the theory: Prisoner’s Dilemma)
Million dollar question. If we understand man as a predatory animal such a individual is only acting out naturally.
In reality such a circumstance always follows into their word against yours.
Because the state with their so called infallible wisdom guided by morality has bigger guns and resources of power they come off as more accepted however if we were to have a society or government that thrived on murder with the same power it too would be acceptable.
[b]Whoever has the power can talk the masses into believing and doing anything.
( We see this in ancient cultures with willing victims of ritual sacrifice guided by powers of religion and state.)[/b]
That is what I believe of course this doesn’t hinder other people’s perceptions of revenge.
Example-
If I go out and kill a couple of people this doesn’t hinder a family member’s insight to vengeance.
This is where things get tricky:
Those seeking vengeance and retribution in the anarchy sense are not always strong enough to install said punishment by their own weakness.
( Thus in the anarchy sense natural selection is still maintained.)
In a modern organized state scenario the law revolves around the concept of protecting the weak by a policing force and so even if a victim isn’t strong enough to enact the punishment himself he has a police force to enact retribution for him without the victim having to put any effort into anything beyond complaining or wimpering.
( This is where natural selection is nonexistent onto deterioration in state governing societies.)
I will tell you the difference.
In a anarchy scenario victims are not always strong enough to enact retribution where the predatory man still gains momentum in fulfilling his natural abilities of survival by that of strength.
( The predatory man is free to carry out his natural predatory motives so long his strength holds since the victim is too weak to defend themselves.)
In a state centralized government scenario guided by moral pretenses the man naturally acting predatory is immediately condemned under the fictitious construction of “rights”.
( The predatory man is immediately condemned, executed, or imprisoned by fictitious ideologies through large masses of people in numbers by that of fanatical belief structures.)
It shouldn’t. Although it does complicate many things for such a individual.
( Unnecessary complications.)
Exactly. 
Moralists were the first ones to concoct state initiatives of governmental control.
( Moralists and religionists.)
Before the world of government and religion you essentially had a primitive landscape of individual egoists only concerned with themselves or their own kin.
I would like to compare such a world of egoists to a primitive den of lions.
Very good, Realunoriginal.
Couldn’t explain it better myself.
Please. Moralists believe in a inherent original sin which they attribute to man’s natural untamed wild instinct.
You can get a interesting understanding of what I am saying in this piece here:
That is a global phenomena not just left to the United States concerning moralists.
Under the centralized state leadership the weak are protected but should the governmental moral measures fail in total anarchy it is open season on the weak like a buffet frenzy on them for those who are naturally predatory.
(Sighs)
Read my new posts for a understanding on punishment and retribution. No offence but this post sounds so new age filled with pacifism underlines.
( I can’t stand new age ideologies. Shrugs.)
The “crimes” mentioned in these posts would be penalised, whether we had government or not. In fact, when goverrnments talk of police power, these are the only crimes that they bring up as an example. Does goverrnment broadcast that the real use of the police is not to stop crimes, which all agree are destructive to everyone?
The real function of the police is social control for the benefit of the ruling elite. That government propanda only talks about criminal acts is an act of self delusion.
NB. You want to rape a four year old girl and call this an example of personal freedom? I don’t think so. And I would say the same of those who mug a seventy year old lady…
Dave
okay, I accept your terms
That would ascertain my belief more than anything. That men have the freedom to do what they choose is what I am asserting.
I think rights are bullshit. To have a right implies that there is someone or something to hand them out and that their is some mystical list of rights that each person is endowed with. A lot of people are like you and imagine that there is a thing called “rights.”
Governments are only a result of people using their freedom. You can act against them and they can try to do what they want to you.
Who cares what my post sounds like? Why don’t you stop making excuses and reply to it?
If that is all you are asserting, your assertion amounts to a circular statement. You are defining freedom by what people choose to do and you are defining what people choose to do by saying it is their freedom.
Yes you are quite right…I mistyped. I should have typed something like this: That these “slaves” are doing what they choose asserts that they really are free.