So, there are two major types of political beliefs in the United States, Conservatism and Liberalism. Both of these had their share of ups and downs. Either you support absolute freedom, economical freedom and less regulation, which eventually will give birth to too big to fail banks and huge corporations that will control the government through lobbying against your interests, and in terms, demolish those freedoms. Then you have sexual and racial equality, at least on paper, more economic regulation which in theory stuns economical growth but protects consumers from recession and corporate abuse, more government programs for education and innovation in the public sector. In theory, this should lead to socialism, and again, to loss of freedom under big government, but that hasn’t happened. What happened was the first scenario which started under Reagan and his abolishment of crucial financial regulations, less taxes and new Corporate friendly laws. Now, 20 years later we are in a deep recession, huge dept and coming inflation, all the result of the Banks and Corporations which were out of control, ever hungry and careless. Does the conservative scenario work? Does trying to establish as much freedoms as possible lead to corporate takeovers? Are beliefs by nature extreme, by that I mean there are no balanced approaches?
Actually, I think you make a good point. Slavery (having to work hard for your boss) can come from freedom (capitalism) and freedom (not having to work hard for your boss) from slavery (socialism). On the other hand, slavery can come from slavery and freedom from freedom. The key is… murder. Murder is the ultimate form of freedom, the ultimate form of purity. When your dead, your free. Either you cease to exist, or you become a ghost. A ghost is intangible, it doesn’t have a boss, nor a belly. The key is to kill as many people as possible, so as to maximize freedom. There are many kinds of slavery indeed, socialist slavery, capitalist slavery, slavery to your house, your car, your wife, your kids, the idea is to burn your house with your wife and kids in it, take the car and move to another fucking country. On the one hand, you risk going to prison, on the other hand, you’re in prison already. At least if you kill your wife and kids, there’s a chance you’ll be free. It’s better to be poor and free, than rich and servile. The thing about republicanism is-- there’s less freedom and more affluence, the thing about democratism is-- there’s less slavery and more poverty. So actually, democratism is superior to republicanism, but democratism isn’t democratism, it’s republicanism in disguise, so vote for men like Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich.
Septimum. I think your statement is based on the assumption that freedom, and non freedom are distinct entirely. I believe that both are always the case, just to one degree or another. So I really don’t think there’s a dilemma. There’s a guy who once wrote about how you’ve got to have the “freedom to”, and the “freedom from” even though at first glance they seem to negate each other so you’d think only one could be the case, but that’s just not how it is.