Will we ever be free?

[Belinda]

Whitetrshsoldier,I have heard about the OJSimpson case, but have not studied it. Please if you are going to give me another example let it not be a murder enquiry as I never can work up much interest in whodunnits.

As for the credibility of scientists, they publish peer reviewed work. Unless you think there is some massive conspiracy how can it be that peer reviews do not give more credibility than journalists who are plain non-scientists who are hired by press barons?
_________________
Socialist

[Martin Ekdahl]

[athena]

I am not understanding the direction this thread has taken.

There is order and there is chaos. It seems to me anything of value comes from order. Order curbs freedom, and the benefits of this out weigh the benefits of chaos.

Suppose homeless people had the freedom to enter our homes and do with our things as they want. Is this freedom a good thing?

How about Bush invading and looting Iraq, as a warrior king of old, is this a good thing? And our troops are in Afghanistan why? Why did the USSR have troops in Afghanistan, and did we do the right thing when we armed and trained Bin Ladin's men?

Freedom? warrior kings, non productive members of society and their needs/wants, order verse chaos. What is the freedom that is to be desired? What are the cost and the benefits?
_________________
born to master the art of love

[Dewey]

Post #15 by athena is a good reminder to us to think of freedom in terms of the group or nation as well as the individual. Our objective should be two-fold: (1) for each of us to maximize his/her personal freedom and minimize any infringement on the personal freedom of other people and (2) for our nation and other groups to do the same thing with respect to other nations and groups. Freedom is essential to world order and peace.

Incidentally, if the above seems like a plug for the forum I opened on moderation, that’s because it is a plug. Balancing the freedoms of different entities is a perfect example of the moderation process that is so lacking in today’s politics.

And, not incidentally, the need for the freedom of nations underscores for me, at least, the tremendous importance of supporting and developing the United Nations.
_________________
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end. "
-Immanuel Kant

[Itmattersnot]

Will we ever be free?


History has taught us that all freedom comes at a price.

This price is the lack of total freedom.

While it is a good thing we strive to ascertain as much freedom as possible for any individual, total freedom would be our biggest prison.

If we don't have to take responsibility for anything than those that would out of free will would have to impose restriction of freedom on those that will not.

[whitetrshsoldier]

[Dewey]

whitetrshsoldier said:
"Suppose I had the freedom to defend myself from the threat that this homeless person presents? Then he is welcome to attempt to exercise his 'freedom' to enter my home. Remember, creating a law to stop him does not mean that he is not free to enter, anyways. It only means that he can be prosecuted by the law for his 'violation' of my "legally defined" freedom. These are all abstract constructs of who's "freedom" is more valuable. In the end, though, it all comes down to the fact that both parties are essentially "free" to do what they wish, although consequences will vary depending on the legal determinations of a given society."


Haven't you strayed from the subject, whitetrshsoldier? I think we are only talking about the right, the entitlement, to freedom.

You're right to be concerned about how to actually get that to which you are entitled. But it's a separate subject -- and perhaps outside the purview of (ahem!) us philosophers.


PS:
I just noticed that you did not bring this stray matter up first. So I regret having singled you out. Otherwise, my comment still holds.
_________________
"Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end. "
-Immanuel Kant

[whitetrshsoldier]

[athena]

[Martin Ekdahl]

[athena]

Are you asking for freedom or liberty? Liberty does not mean the freedom, or license, to do as we please, because that would mean chaos and destruction. Liberty is the freedom to do the right thing, and only highly moral can have it. Those who lack morality must be controlled, as a master controls a dog.

For example, I have a very good dog and want to do all I can to please him. Although feeding him chicken bones would make him very happy, chicken bones splitter and are dangerous for dogs to eat, so I don't give him chicken bones, nor allow him to eat them when finds them in the field along the path we walk.

Of course my dog is happiest running free without a leash. This exposes to him to many dangers, such as eating the wrong thing, running in front of a car or bicycle, getting close to a mean dog. I have reduced some of the danger, by training him to stay to the right of the path, and to come when called. He has no understanding of why I insist he follow these rules, and as long as I am right there to do the thinking for him, it doesn't matter that he doesn't understand why he must stay on the right side of the road or come when I call.

The problem is religious moral training is like the training a dog gets. People are taught to obey, but not necessarily why the policy, rule, law is as it is. Therefore, if they obey or not, depends almost totally on their fear of being punished if they are caught. This leads to a police state, because the people must be kept under control as we keep our dogs under control. They are not really moral, capable of understanding why this is a right or wrong choice, but at best, are obedient. If they do not learn fear of God, what is to keep them good? The police state.

Until 1958, we had education for good moral judgment, while maintaining separation of church and state. This is possible because religion is not required to have education for good moral judgment. Having good moral judgment is being able to figure out the consequences of ones actions.

However, in 1958 we stopped transmitting our culture and left moral training to the church. This put us on the road to having a police state, and that makes all our spending on national defense futile. Our military can not defend our democracy and liberty, only education and culture can do that.

Does that make sense?

[whitetrshsoldier]

[Martin Ekdahl]

[athena]

Whiteshoulder, I don't understand your post. Your argument is largely in agreement with my points, but you have stated them as though we disagree. Mind explaining how my explanation of what is required for liberty, becomes a police state. What I have said means there is little need for laws and law enforcers.

Martin Ekdahl, Racism is opposed to democracy and unfortunately was not prevented from the beginning of the US. Some wanted to end it, but it was institutionalized and those who understood democracy were not strong enough to oppose those who did not.

Morality is never a leash, when people understand its relationship to liberty. We seriously need to discuss this. Try the thread Good moral judgment in the Epistemology and Metaphysics forum, to increase an understanding of morality in a democracy.

This is really over simplifying everything, but it might give us grounds for further discussion.

We used the Conceptual Method for education, teaching increasingly complex concepts, preparing everyone for independent thinking and good moral judgment, civic and political leadership.

In 1958 we replaced this with the Behaviorist Method, that is also used for training dogs. It is more dependent on memorization than logic. The teacher programs the student to respond to predetermine stimuli with rewards and punishments, like a God who gets people to do as He wants with promises of reward and punishment. The students are the dogs, and the state holds the leash. Education for technology prepares everyone for the Military Industrial Complex, a technological society with unknown values, and authority over the people. This is a huge shift in power and authority, with terrible social ramifications.

I remember when a receptionist knew just about everything, and was free to answer all the questions asked by those who came to her for answers. Then things were changed, and the receptionist is forbidden to answer any question, and told to send everyone to the person who has the sole authority for answering questions. The change is an absolute nightmare to older people who remember when things were very different. No one is doing anything that is not their defined responsibility, and this is devastating to the democracy and liberty we had. It is like everyone has lost conscience and moral judgment.

Here is another example. I was a Senior Companion, and I was dismissed for raising my voice in a doctor's office. Actually, I was dismissed because I spoke with the administration above the doctor, and he was protecting himself by discrediting me. Whatever- my point is, for a couple of years I was the paid friend of about 8 people, and suddenly I was suppose to disappear out of their lives and never speak with them again. Everyone my age and younger seems terrified of the consequences of me daring to continue these relationships. However, the older people are aghast at the idea that any authority can prevent us from continuing the friendship.

Just knowing the history of the US is not enough. We also need to know the history of Germany, because we have adopted the German model for bureaucracy and German education for technology, and have become what we fought against. You should see the look of terror in the eyes of my professional friends when I say I will be visiting with a past client. Then ask, how did the Germans do what they did as they came to WWII. Contrast, my professional friend's fear of authority, with the defiance of the older people who refuse to recognize any power of authority above their own authority to decide whom they will see and whom they will not see. My professional friends, do not think the authority of bureaucracy is right, but they are terrified of its power. The older people can not understand this. OUR DEMOCRACY WITH LIBERTY IS ON THE LINE, WHAT DO YOU THINK I SHOULD DO, DEFY THE AUTHORITY OR OBEY IT? THINK WHAT HAPPENED IN GERMANY.

If we do not immediately realize what we have done, and return to liberal education, before us old goats, who remember when things were different, die, we have fought every war for nothing, because there will be no lone left to say our country was not always like this.

[Martin Ekdahl]