The Truth About Freedom

In the midst of American nationalistic patriotic fury, it is hard to find any decent statements from either Americans, or the media about the idea of freedom. There is the ridiculous notion that freedom is provided by the state, that we, as citizens cannot be free without Big Brother’s guiding hand. As an anarchist I scoff at statements like, “Freedom isn’t free,” and arguments directed at radicals like me that, “You wouldn’t be able to say bad things about the government if you didn’t live in America.”

It may be true that if I lived in Iraq, I would have less freedom. But this only fires my argument that all hierarchy should be abolished. Human beings are born free. They do not need government, whether monarchy or democracy. The reason government exists in the first place is not to protect the society in which one lives, but to control the society in which one lives. It is only useful to those in power. When farming began, people settled to build crops. As technology advanced the dominant members enslaved the majority and created a gross imbalance of power and distribution to the citizens of these “civilizations.” The common myth of utopian societies is that they need to be governed somehow by fairness. It’s not possible! Power is inherently corrupting. It is an anti-individualist and anti-human statement to say that America’s system is necessary for a good living.

Even those at the top crest are not living their best. Even the super rich are alienated and disconnected from real “freedom.” Of course the poor are ten times worse in their circumstance, but this disconnectedness in the middle and upper classes can be derived from not understanding the reality of freedom. Obese T.V. watching Americans do not see the reality outside their work and jobs. They have been cut-off from the natural world by useless constraints like dress-codes and work schedules which for many people have no control. Nature is freedom. Human beings cease to be human when on a of diet carbonated drinks and seeking visions of Reality T.V. shows.

The past was not perfect, nor was the prehistoric past. Utopias are not possible until every human being is sinless. Although the stone age was not perfect, we as humans were not so alienated before we were governed by the oligarchic mess we have now with useless rules, regulations, and punishments. Freedom is free. The worst evil is power. The greatest good is “free love” which I hope we will have more of in this digitally oversexed, but physically sexless era.

PanAm,

" But this only fires my argument that all hierarchy should be abolished. Human beings are born free. They do not need government, whether monarchy or democracy."

Is the hyena of the African plain “born free”?

Dunamis

"Is the hyena of the African plain “born free”? "

Yes. Animals are born free as well. Human beings are in fact a kind of animal, only an animal tortured by a vast intellegence. The fact that a hyena can roam where it wants to on the African plain, the fact that it gets killed for food, not for politics, makes it superior in some ways to people.

PanAm,

“Yes. Animals are born free as well.”

Well then explain this:

“all hierarchy should be abolished.”

"Spotted hyenas live in large clans, each inhabiting a territory of varying size. A hyena clan is rarely gathered together at any given time; instead, it is divided into smaller packs and single hyenas, temporary groupings that frequently form, disperse and reform. Clans are led by a single female hyena, the matriarch. Hyena clans also have secondary leaders who lead smaller pack divisions. Hyena packs consist of a single leader and several other hyenas who follow her lead. Packs are formed both deliberately and coincidentally; hyenas will gather together to form packs, although they may often find themselves together by chance. These packs are temporary; they will eventually disperse, and the hyenas may join other packs, or, in the case of pack leaders, form a new pack. The hyena clan has a [size=150]hierarchy[/size], with the matriarch and pack leaders holding the highest rank. Female hyenas are larger, stronger and fiercer than males, and thus hold higher rank and are more frequently pack leaders.

Hyenas of a clan live, rest, run down prey and patrol their territory together. Hyenas at rest will often gather at a nice sleeping place, or splash around together in a water hole. Pack leaders assemble patrol forces to secure the clan’s territorial borders, marking the boundries and chasing off any intruders. Hyena packs use coordinated attacks to take down the stronger of prey animals. In battle, hyenas fight fiercely in large packs, supporting and defending each other. Even without a specific purpose, hyenas will often group into packs simply for companionship. However, hyenas are not completely dependent on their clan for support; they can run down a gazelle or wildebeest unassisted, and even a single hyena can fight off a leopard. Some hyenas will wander off alone, rejoining the clan at a later time; others are lone hyenas, independent of any clan."

Dunamis

True. A hyena clan may exist in a hierarchy. But the hyena is not alienated from nature due to their technological incapabilities. The Native American tribes were hierarchies though their societies were not oppressive due to their connectedness with nature.

Modern hierarchies are different than ancient primitive ones. “Freedom” is more accessible without industrialism and digital technology. Hyenas are in a completely different context due to the nature of their society. They do not have consumerism, capitalism, technoligy, and money, which are the contexts of the hierarchies I was referring to.

PanAm,

“Modern hierarchies are different than ancient primitive ones. “Freedom” is more accessible without industrialism and digital technology.”

What about industrial and digital techology is unnatural to Man? What about government and laws was not created, naturally, by Man?

Dunamis

which tribe(s) and how do you define “oppressive” and “connectedness with nature”?

the gender roles were very clearly defined in all tribes…

-Imp

If you look at the history of humanity and the speculated history of even pre-human beings you will find that not once during all of that time has man been a free agent. There has always been either some kind of mutual dependence going one, which requires subjugation of the will, or down right domination. It can even be argued that the dominators are dominated by those that they dominate, as one is forced to be extra vigilant against revolt.

It could be said that civilization and division of labor helped to add some free time into the life. However, I have also read that cities add to the subjugation as people are forced into certain little roles that they can’t get out of and living off of the land is impossible.

No matter how many examples I give in favor of the nonexistence of freedom I cannot give one where humans were ever entirely free to make their own choices.

Anyway, the idea of freedom is an “as if” philosophical principle designed to engineer society in such a way that people will treat each other more respectfully, and as a way to defeat the concept of royalty. It’s not true, but it “should” be true, would be the way to think about it.

On a personal note: it can be a bit insulting to think that you are just some organic robot following a program, but that’s the way it is.

but it doesn’t have to be, and i think that’s the most important part. nothing has to be any one way if we want to change it, because we’re intelligent enough to change it. as PantheistAnimal was saying, the problems is in people’s confusion of what freedom is and what the optimal habitat for a human being is. most of our lives revolve around lies (whether we know it or not)… lies, mistrust, and greed fuel our society and to lie is certainly not natural. without the demands of our society, there would be no need for lying. of course lying would still exist…

in my opinion true and absolute freedom would require a chaotic society devoid of lies and mistrust… no power to be had, no posessions to be owned, everything is shared because everyone is trustworthy… this of course is unattainable, but you think with our intelligence we could at least be working in the right direction :confused:

to not understand what PantheistAnimal is saying, is to not have a grasp on our society’s sad but true reality and the inevitability of our downfall.

Integra.,

“most of our lives revolve around lies (whether we know it or not)… lies, mistrust, and greed fuel our society and to lie is certainly not natural. without the demands of our society, there would be no need for lying. of course lying would still exist…”

“To lie certainly is not natural”? Does the stick insect “lie” when it lies motionless? Is not the lies, mistrust and “demands” of society, nothing more than the hive of the bees that we are? I don’t not understand the criteria whereby you establish what is natural and what is unnatural.

in my opinion true and absolute freedom would require a chaotic society devoid of lies and mistrust…

If you want “absolute freedom” let’s blast you into space without a spacesuit. You can do whatever you want for about 30 seconds. Outside of that, all freedom comes within assemblage. Assemblage requires patterning. If human beings produce certain patterns, those patterns are natural to humans, by definition, unless you want to hypothesize about the Devil.

Dunamis

after putting some thought into what you’ve said. before responding, i must first ask whether you are more interested in picking apart my imperfect wording and grammar. after reading your responses a couple times over, it seems like you are less interested in understand our point of view and what we have to say, and more interested in proving us wrong without really saying anything… i’m not asking you to blindly agree with me and follow me, but most of society is, and i find is somewhat funny and somewhat horrifying who you decided to defend in this situation. if i’m looking into it too much, or its just a fact of 2 different perspectives colliding, forgive me… i mean no offense.

Inter.,

" it seems like you are less interested in understand our point of view and what we have to say, and more interested in proving us wrong without really saying anything…"

What I am interesting in pointing out, to anybody who takes recourse to the idea of the “natural” and the criticism of the “unnatural” is that they must have a way of distinguishing the criteria by which they make this designation. Are we just to listen you to tell us “x” is natural because I say so, and “y” is natural because I say so, therefore “x” is good, “y” is bad. Let’s have a lot of “x”. This is just nonsense. Its not a question of grammar, it a question of conception. The idea of “natural” is problematic. It is over and over again used polemically without defintion, as if without needing to be defined. Now if you, or anyone else is going to say that laws and government are “unnatural”, even though they are seemingly naturally (all social groups on earth do so) produced by men, just as the hyena participates in hierarchies of society and social organization, shouldn’t you be made to clarify your position, from what basis you say this? Are you not used to people questioning your beliefs, or asking you to explain how you came to them?

“in my opinion true and absolute freedom would require a chaotic society”

You would like a chaotic society just about as long as it would take for a group of others to organize, physically overwhelm and enslave you.

Dunamis

the reason for my previous post can be seen here:
"You would like a chaotic society just about as long as it would take for a group of others to organize, physically overwhelm and enslave you. "

to quote myself earlier:
"…this of course is unattainable, but you think with our intelligence we could at least be working in the right direction :confused: "

i’m somewhat at a loss for words as to how that paragraph came to be (yours).

also, my original statement that you quoted (but left out part), “in my opinion true and absolute freedom would require a chaotic society devoid of lies and mistrust… no power to be had, no posessions to be owned, everything is shared because everyone is trustworthy.”

the cynical situation you layed out for me ignored the second half of what i said.

“shouldn’t you be made to clarify your position, from what basis you say this? Are you not used to people questioning your beliefs, or asking you to explain how you came to them?”

actually, no, i am not, however i am usually the first to offer an explanation, especially if the person seems to not understand what i’m saying…

it seems to me that picking apart what we’re saying for the sake of logistics will keep you far from a perspective required to understand what we’re trying to say. if you are in fact genuine, then i apologize, although i sense defensiveness in your typing.

i have had quite a bit of experience with people taking what people say and twisting it around to ‘put words in my mouth’, purposefully or not… or people just not making sense in their responses to what i say or explanations for what they say. for example:

"You would like a chaotic society just about as long as it would take for a group of others to organize, physically overwhelm and enslave you. "

this makes no sense because:

  1. in a chaotic society, there would be no organization, that is the very definition of chaos
  2. i never said i wanted a chaotic society…
  3. who’s to say that i wouldn’t organize, physically overwhelm and enslave you? :wink:

“What I am interesting in pointing out, to anybody who takes recourse to the idea of the “natural” and the criticism of the “unnatural” is that they must have a way of distinguishing the criteria by which they make this designation. Are we just to listen you to tell us “x” is natural because I say so, and “y” is natural because I say so, therefore “x” is good, “y” is bad. Let’s have a lot of “x”. This is just nonsense. Its not a question of grammar, it a question of conception. The idea of “natural” is problematic. It is over and over again used polemically without defintion, as if without needing to be defined.”

i agree with what you’re saying here. but in your attempt to rid our posts of loopholes so-to-speak, you are creating much bigger loopholes that leave us so confused with how we can explain what we’re trying to say so you will understand, and in doing so we inevitably create more loopholes because we obviously dont fully understand your point of view, or (more likely) why you can’t understand ours. the cycle continues and continues (usually why creationism vs evolutionism arguments basically just say the same things over and over)… while the idea of ‘natural’ i agree is problematic. the inability to see that the problem with the idea of ‘natural’ lies in perspective is also quite problematic. its harder to describe an abstract idea based on ones perspective to someone with a completely different perspective than it is to describe and attempt to relate other things to link the two different perspectives.

Int.

“in my opinion true and absolute freedom would require a chaotic society devoid of lies and mistrust… no power to be had, no posessions to be owned, everything is shared because everyone is trustworthy.”

the cynical situation you layed out for me ignored the second half of what i said.

What you are proposing is a utopia, which literally means “no place”, and in fact a contradictory one, a place where there is “no power to be had” and I suppose everyone just gets along. Could one just as easily suggest that we return to the Garden of Eden? I left out the rest because it seemed nonsensical. The lies, mistrust, possessions, are part of the very power relations that produce trust, truth and commonality. In what way you imagine that a “chaotic society” (undefined by you, but the word chaotic suggests no rules, or the governance of “natural” rules which simply are assumed or unstated). In other words you are incredibly unclear.

actually, no, i am not, however i am usually the first to offer an explanation, especially if the person seems to not understand what i’m saying…

Explain what you mean by the term “natural”.

  1. in a chaotic society, there would be no organization, that is the very definition of chaos

  2. i never said i wanted a chaotic society…

  3. who’s to say that i wouldn’t organize, physically overwhelm and enslave you?

  4. Is nonsensical. The term is an oxymoron. Society implies order, chaos implies disorder. It is a completely meaningless term. The fact that it would be chaotic of course would not prevent others from organizing within it, just as organized society does not prevent chaos from breaking out from within it.

  5. You implied it in some vague utopian sense. I responded.

  6. If you did organize, you would have to deal with my organizations of power, in other words we would be in the “natural” position we are in now.

I agree with what you’re saying here. but in your attempt to rid our posts of loopholes so-to-speak, you are creating much bigger loopholes that leave us so confused with how we can explain what we’re trying to say so you will understand, and in doing so we inevitably create more loopholes because we obviously dont fully understand your point of view, or (more likely) why you can’t understand ours. the cycle continues and continues (usually why creationism vs evolutionism arguments basically just say the same things over and over)… while the idea of ‘natural’ i agree is problematic. the inability to see that the problem with the idea of ‘natural’ lies in perspective is also quite problematic. its harder to describe an abstract idea based on ones perspective to someone with a completely different perspective than it is to describe and attempt to relate other things to link the two different perspectives.

I quote your entire run on of ideas for fear of leaving out something you think is essential to your point. Again, please define “natural”. If you’re going to use the term polemically, you should be able to offer its meaning. Don’t you think?

“the problems is in people’s confusion of what freedom is and what the optimal habitat for a human being is.”

What really is “freedom”? What is the optimal habitate for a human being? Is the absence of laws optimal?

Dunamis

lol here we go :slight_smile:

"What you are proposing is a utopia, which literally means “no place”, and in fact a contradictory one undefined one. Could one just as easily suggest that we return to the Garden of Eden? I left out the rest because it seemed nonsensical. The lies, mistrust, possessions, are part of the very power relations that produce trust, truth and commonality. In what way you imagine that a “chaotic society” (undefined by you, but the word chaotic suggests no rules, or the governance of “natural” rules which simply are assumed or unstated). In other words you are incredibly unclear. "

yep yep :slight_smile: remember earlier when i said it was unattainable?

“I quote your entire run on of ideas for fear of leaving out something you think is essential to your point. Again, please define “natural”. If you’re going to use the term polemically, you should be able to offer its meaning. Don’t you think?”

its silly of you to think that i assumed you didn’t read my whole paragraph becasue you didn’t quote the whole thing… cynical sarcasm?

again i’m pretty confused… i read over my paragraph over and over expecting a typo or something, but i dont see anywhere that i use the term polemically… i used problematic a few times in attempt to link our perspectives, obviously i have failed

“The idea of “natural” is problematic.” ← you said it first :slight_smile:

i see where you used polemically and i looked it up and agree that its very fitting to these kinds of discussions, good word :slight_smile:

if something can only exist in chaos, then how can it be defined? a definition implies order. (referring to the sentance you used polemically)

woo hoo this is fun… hopefully we can gain insight to new perspectives though this discussion :slight_smile:

Int,

"if something can only exist in chaos, then how can it be defined? a definition implies order. (referring to the sentance you used polemically) "

Ahh, I finally get your true vision into the nature of freedom, which everyone else is confused about. Let me summarize:

  1. The world is full of lies.
  2. Lies are bad and unnatural, but I can’t define what natural is.
  3. We should live in a chaotic state, which cannot be defined because it is chaotic, where we would nonetheless not lie because there is no power.
  4. We can never reach such a state but we should try to, even though there is no way to define it.
  5. Never mind anything I said, because none of it exists, all of it is full of contradictions and I can’t define anything, but the world would all be a better place if it was true.

Very Nice. Now I understand what natural means.

Dunamis

i would be delighted to continue our conversation, but the context in which you speak is unnecessary and neither of us will gain anything from the conversation like that… have a nice day :slight_smile:

The thing is, it took several thousand years of failures and the knowledge gained from those failures that led to our modern society…which is better for more people than at any other point in history.

Do you have any conception of how much better your life is now than it would have been 100,200,1000 years earlier? We live longer and have means of curing painful illnesses, we don’t have to eat beans and turnips every meal because there is no other food available, we don’t have to lug well-water from half a mile away to make a coffee or wash our face, we can communicate with people from around the world and read up on virtually any subject at the touch of a button…it is an organized society that makes all of these things possible.

Strip it all away and “poof”…off goes the sense of legitimacy that keeps “might makes right” in check. We steal, we rape, we fight,we kill, we throw our shit, we stink…we are not particularily nice animals. We need all the help we can get…we need leaders to rule over us and laws to keep order. Fuck this view of “natural is better”…most of us are violent morons…we need a hierarchy, we need technology…we’re helpless without it.

I am surprised no one has mentioned the following note that I am about to present. And ya’lls lil’ feud up there needs to come to an end–you both have different opinions, whether defined or not.
Anyways, back to to the roots of the conversation, government is useful. The Government keeps us out of chaos. The whole act behind a ‘power’ is to keep moral standards in order, and diffferent countries have different morals. The American society has been based around an all-free moral, which is not 100% flaw-less since it is natural to have humane prejudice. The point being, if we did have chaos–without any government–do you really want “extreme” lifestyles walking around doing whatever they like? Gothics and bullies, jocks, satanists,…all hardcore people. Do you really want to adjust to their personal rules?

Shyster, you are missing the point of what I am saying. With all the great benefits of modern society there are also great drawbacks. The drawbacks are usually hidden from sight or riddled with illusions, and when people attempt to bring them to light, they are generallaly ridiculed. if i turn on the TV i am confronted by super athletes saying how using the all new “super super work out machine” for only 20 minutes a week for 6 weeks completely reshaped their body, when you know (they tell you) that they were a professional athlete and in great shape before they even touched the machine. that is LYING. they are telling people that this machine will make you look like this guy/gal in 6 weeks… young children with sponge minds watch television and movies and think that’s the way life is, or should be… in the course of my life i have met countless people who act like they are trapped in a sit com or soap opera… whether its intentional or not has absolutely nothing to do with the point that the entertainment industry (including the news, of course) has nearly all of the USA brainwashed. people continuously cause uneeded stress and anxiety, most of which is inevitable in a capatalist mass society…

Maybe we would, but i find it much more appaling that we steal, rape, fight, and kill FOR NO REASON in our ‘civilized’ society. people’s own insecurities and confusion are what creates a need (or a strong desire) for power, greed, and a governing body… i’m not saying we should completely abandon organization and technology… they are useful tools and no matter how many times we abandon them, they will always resurface… this is inevitable… i certainly make use of my share of technology… however i dont take it for granted… i may not be one with the essense of nature, but i still have a lot of living to do and a lot of learning to do… and i intend to completely abandon modern society at least for a couple years… maybe after that time i will be able to offer a better definition of ‘natural’ or offer a more universally understood perspective.

edit, robertson posted while i was replying :slight_smile:

“Anyways, back to to the roots of the conversation, government is useful. The Government keeps us out of chaos.”
i agree. however goverment has become much different that initially intended. there are those interested in the well being of others, but what about some that believe they know whats best and choose to lie to everyone, or use the guise of good intentions for selfishness. the american people were told that Japan bombed pearl harbor so the entry into the world war would be supported by the population. again i’m not trying to say we should abandon all organization of society, its just really screwed up, and should AT LEAST be addressed, which hardly anyone is doing.

" The whole act behind a ‘power’ is to keep moral standards in order, and diffferent countries have different morals. The American society has been based around an all-free moral, which is not 100% flaw-less since it is natural to have humane prejudice. The point being, if we did have chaos–without any government–do you really want “extreme” lifestyles walking around doing whatever they like? Gothics and bullies, jocks, satanists,…all hardcore people. Do you really want to adjust to their personal rules?"

but think about how all the different moral standards came to be widely accepted in their own arenas. religion has caused more hate and unnecessary killing than anything else EVER… the ‘extreme’ lifestyles you talk about result from confusion and/or misunderstanding of any number of things… our society is filled with so many supposed truths that when you attempt to put two and two together, so-to-speak, sometimes things just dont quite make sense… this causes confusions and misunderstandings that lead to “extreme” lifestyles…