|
Freedom
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PeacefulWarrior |
| It is surprising that although most of us are opposed ot political tyranny and dictatorship, we inwardly accept the authority, the tyranny, of another to twist our minds and our way of life. Are we free simply because we have a "choice," or the ability to choose? |
|
|
| Verona^My |
| quote: | Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior
It is surprising that although most of us are opposed ot political tyranny and dictatorship, we inwardly accept the authority, the tyranny, of another to twist our minds and our way of life. Are we free simply because we have a "choice," or the ability to choose? |
freedom is created through order... Imagine for a moment a society with no laws... you would live in fear just as you would if you were living under an oppressive dictatorship. Probably more so even, people need government to protect people from themselves, otherwise you have no freedom what so ever.
Now think about big cities & living on streets where you wouldn't dare tread because the crime is so high in certain neighborhoods. I ask an important question, how free are you when you cant walk the streets at night because you live in a crime ridden neighborhood. It's probably just as bad in some cases as living in a dictatorship.
I haven't lived in a dictatorship, so I'm not one to judge, but nor have I lived in a crime ridden neighborhood. But I can imagine living in either one, and seeing the potential problems that would arise for myself living under such oppressive conditions. So yes, I accept for myself, the necessity of the thin blue line, the necessity of governments to create order & conditions for a successful nation. |
|
|
| Renegade |
Verona^My:
Yes, but there's a difference between security and freedom.
In the example you give, even in the most crime-infested society in the world, you are still free to choose whether you wish to walk outside or not, and free to decide when this is going to be. In a free society, no-one can stop you from going on a suicidal 3am fun-run.
The flip-side is that one could live in the most crime free society in the world, but they may have had to have given up your freedoms to achieve it. Perhaps the government has implemented a 9pm curfew, preventing the majority of crime, but also taking away our freedom to walk around after dark. Order and freedom aren't necessarily the exact opposites, having said that, but depriving us of the ability to make specific autonomous choices can - on occasion - give us security and order at the expense of freedom. Only someone much smarter than I can say which is the more important goal.
| quote: | | Are we free simply because we have a "choice," or the ability to choose? |
Prepare yourself, this is going to get very Satre-esque:
Freedom isn't about making a choice or being able to make a choice, it's about being condemned to make a choice. The free man has no other option but to make choices, for even not choosing is a choice in itself. However, mans freedom to choose becomes a responsibility to choose in a free society and this, I would suggest, scares him. He cannot escape the fact that he alone is responsible to decide his own path in life (and, by extension, the path of all man-kind) and feels angst towards this responsibility to choose.
But then, faced with the full scope of his freedom, man is prepared to sacrifice some of his choices to avoid some of his responsibility - and freedom and responsibility are one and the same in this case..... when one's freedom is deteriorated, so to is one's responsibility to one's fellow-man. Thus, man is prepared to delegate his ability to choose to government, prepared to sacrifice some of his freedoms to defer his responsibility onto someone else. Now, when something goes wrong in his life, he no longer needs to blame his own choices, but those of the government to whom he has delegated his responsibility to choose: "I lost my job, I blame the economic mismanagement of the Bush administration". All of a sudden, much of mans choice is out of his hands, yet he feels comfortable with this, for he is no longer responsible for the ills of his society, the world or of his own life. For as long as we can accurately trace the patterns of civilization man has continually used religion and politics as a means of deferring his responsibility to choose - and we can see it still, even today. The more "ill" a society is - the greater the desire for the population to absolve themselves of the sense of responsibility for the current state of the society - the more likely they are to be driven towards religious and political extremism. When one is prepared to sacrifice their freedom to the church or a government who's ideologies lie on the extreme left or right of the political compass, they are merely deferring their social responsibilities out of fear - namely that of the fear of choice and the fear of freedom.
Perhaps it's a vestigial instinct inherent within everyone of us - perhaps harking back to the days of our primate ancestors who, if modern primates are anything to go by, lived in very heirarchical societies - but if history has shown us anything over its millenia of turmoil, it is this: man is scared to be free.
And I need another drink. :eek: |
|
|
| Izzy |
| what a great post renegade! |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
So, renegade, you actually conclude the total contrary to Marx' theory of the everlasting fight between classes FOR freedom? Actually when looking at the history of civilization u see a gradual increase of personal/political freedom. From strict hierarchies in egypt, to Athen "primitive" dircet democracy, to the Roman stae of laws (which guarenteed more freedom to the indivdual) to the magna carta, the invention of parliament as an insitution to represent the people's will to constituionalism which limited the state's monolpoly of violence to socialism etc. etc. Sure there have always been setback such as feudalism and fascism or the extreme socialism, communism. But at the end of the day people have at least gained more rights. The extent of one's use of the given rights determines one's freedom, I think. Furthermore I wont accept ur statement of the religion as an invention to defer responsibilities and consequently, to weaken one's freedom. Buddhism and Christianity for example both served as movements of liberation in their beginnings. The common people saw them a gift, a set of rules and personal freedom (everyone was equal, everyone could find salvation and enlightment, tolerance of the others etc. etc.) they didnt find in the societes they lived in up to that point. On the flip side religions have also been misused to spread the exact contrary, namely a dogmatic fundamental world view excluding all tolerance and navigated by the greed for power.
As Arbiter said in the other thread, religion is the gun not the bullet. |
|
|
| zarathustra |
| Great posts/topic. |
|
|
| ProDiGaL |
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Kierkegaard |
|
|
| Renegade |
Whoops, sorry, completely forgot I posted in this topic. :wtf:
Trancegiant:
| quote: | | So, renegade, you actually conclude the total contrary to Marx' theory of the everlasting fight between classes FOR freedom? |
The Marxist dialectic, as I understand it anyway, doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do freedom. Marx explained the history of societal conflict in terms of class, and in terms of materialism (hence the term "dialectical materialism"). The lower classes haven't, in the past, been fighting for freedom so much as for equality - thus, the Marxist theory has much more to do with labour and capital than it does with freedom. In these terms then, the American war of Independence wouldn't be seen by Marx as a revolt against English oppression with the aim of increasing personal liberty, but rather as a class revolution, with the American people overthrowing the English, who they thought owned a disproportionately large and thus unequal amount of the capital. In this sense, the American push for independence (just to use an example) becomes more a revolt towards the redistrobution of wealth and power rather than the the push for enhancement of American "freedom".
But the issue of "conflict" - one of the three main tennets of Marxist economic theory - is really the one that allows you to understand why the real world application of Marxism (in the form of communism) has failed, particularly in its ability to allow men to be "free" under this system.
Conflict in the Marxist sense isn't about fighting or war, it's more about the notion of "opposition". That is, a nation establishes a system of politics/economics (say capitalism) and immediately two antitheses will be created: there will be an internal antithesis and an external antithesis. The external antithesis we don't really need to consider here (as it doesn't really effect the level of freedom in the original society), but the internal antithesis has a huge bearing in how and why communist countries so easily descend into dictatorships.
Say a country becomes dissatisfied with its political system and decides to adopt communism as its new political theory. The original system is the thesis (which could be, say, capitalism) and over time, dissatisfaction grows with the system as inequity begins to increase. From this an antithesis is formed (in this case Marxist socialism/communism) and as inequity grows and dissent among the proletariat grows in kind, the old thesis is eventually overthrown by the antithesis, and whatever new system is formed by the antithesis (as the antithesis will still retain some elements of the original thesis) a sythesis is formed when the new political system is established. So when Stalin and Lenin (among others) pioneered communism as the antithesis to the previous system (which in Russia was the Czar empire I believe?), a synthesis was formed, and eventually communism became the new thesis. However, this is where the problem arises: Stalin (especially) was aware that no political system was the be-all and end-all of political systems, so he knew - in time - that an antithesis would arise to communism. This antithesis would undermine the power he had, so he knew - essentially - that in order for the system to remain, and to remain in power himself, he would have to quash whatever reminents of an antithesis existed in his society, thus ensuring that his communistic "thesis" remained unchallenged. The trouble with communism, in this case especially, is that the people are entirely dependant on the government for the distrobution of resources, so the power held by the government and its leader in a said system are huge. In a democratic capitalistic system, there is little a government can do to reduce opposition, because the people hold at least as much power (almost certainly more) than the government does. In the USSR, however, Stalin was so aware of the need to quash opposition - and so aware of the fact that he had the power to do just this - and so was able to starve people to death upon his whim. He killed about 10,000,000 Ukrainians in one year if my memory serves me correctly, merely because he had that much power. Erm, what was my point originally?
Ah yes, my point is that Marx's aim was never to ensure freedom for the people in a given society (as we can see by how dependant the people are on the government - and hence how less free they are - under such a society) but having said that, Satre - the "inspiration" for my above post - used the concepts I was talking about, and after following them to their natural end (theoretically anyway) ended up becoming an extreme leftist who advocated the socialistic - if not the communistic - cause. But it's all much of a muchness in the end - from what I've read by and about Marx, it doesn't seem as though the concept of freedom was as important to him as the concept of equality was.
| quote: | | Actually when looking at the history of civilization u see a gradual increase of personal/political freedom. From strict hierarchies in egypt, to Athen "primitive" dircet democracy, to the Roman stae of laws (which guarenteed more freedom to the indivdual) to the magna carta, the invention of parliament as an insitution to represent the people's will to constituionalism which limited the state's monolpoly of violence to socialism etc. etc. |
Hmmmm.... perhaps. Though it all depends on how you define freedom in the end.
To be sure, the things you mentioned there demonstrate an marked increase in liberty and equality, but I think that freedom is slightly different. Liberty - according to my interpretation anyway - has to do with the recognition of the sanctity of the individual, and about the according development of human rights. Equality has to do with recognition that all individuals are - you guessed it - "equal" and deserve the same degree of "liberty". Freedom, on the other hand, comes down - primarily - to the ability to make choices. In this sense, it is possible to be entirely free but not have any liberty (in a more anarchic society, perhaps, where you can do what you like but your personal sanctity is not preserved under law) and to have liberty but not any freedom (such as someone in a western jail, for instance, who is still afforded human rights, but lacks the freedom to make many of the choices he would otherwise make). In the cases you mentioned, I wouldn't argue that freedom within the proletariat has increased from feudal days for instance (where you were basically either a master or a slave, without having much say in the matter) but I don't think that we are necessarily more free than people were in ancient Athens, say, or perhaps even ancient Rome. If you disclude our technological superiority that immediately grants us with a wider scope of choice (I could fly to Shanghai tomorrow, for instance, whereas the ancient Greeks obviously didn't have that choice) I don't think we are any more free than people were back then.
We have more liberties, to be sure, and there is a greater conception of "equality", but in what sense are we more free? We are still slaves to our situation. We still need to undertake a vocation to make money and survive, and the greater "choice" we have in this situation, as I said before, has as much to do with our technological superiority as it does our political system. For instance, I live in a democratic nation yet I am forced to vote: how much freedom do I really have? The system tells me, "you are compelled to have either this guy or that guy as your leader, so make your choice". Of course, having a choice of two is better than having a choice of one, but nonetheless my current situation has as much to do with what I am limited by, as what I am free to do.
Absolute freedom is an unatainable pipe-dream, and even the "amounts" of freedom a society has is limited and impossible to accurately measure. If someone is poor, for instance, do we say that it's a result of the bad choices he has made, or the fact that his parents couldn't afford to educate him properly, just as their parents couldn't afford to educate them? How free are we, really, when wealth is propogated in that way? Sure, someone born poor has the potential to make money, but if he remains a slave to the circumstances that remain well out of his control - his scope of choice - then just how free is he?
| quote: | | The extent of one's use of the given rights determines one's freedom, I think. |
As I said before, I think rights have more to do with the notions of liberty and equality than freedom. The only rights that determine freedom, are the rights that determine choice.
| quote: | | Furthermore I wont accept ur statement of the religion as an invention to defer responsibilities and consequently, to weaken one's freedom. Buddhism and Christianity for example both served as movements of liberation in their beginnings. The common people saw them a gift, a set of rules and personal freedom (everyone was equal, everyone could find salvation and enlightment, tolerance of the others etc. etc.) they didnt find in the societes they lived in up to that point. On the flip side religions have also been misused to spread the exact contrary, namely a dogmatic fundamental world view excluding all tolerance and navigated by the greed for power. |
Yep, I agree. Religion isn't the problem, it's people's mistreatment of it.
When I said that people are driven to religion to avoid their own responsibilities, I wasn't saying that there is some huge flaw in religion that automatically "corrupts" it followers, merely that people desperate to avoid their sense of responsibility are more likely to avoid them under the security blanket offered by religion, and in this state they are ripe for corruption.
Religions, in their pure and unadulterated form (whatever that may entail) are fine, but - I'm sure we both agree - the dogmatic interpretation of religion is a dangerous thing indeed. Note that I said people looking to escape their own responsibility are more likely to be driven towards religious extremism not necessarily just religion in itself. Under religious extremism - where views are offered as "Gospel Truth" (excuse the pun) negating the possibility of internal criticism usually offered by more moderate religions - people become slaves to their beliefs, giving away large chunks of their existential freedom in exchange for the deference of their responsibilities onto some imaginery deity. Moderate religions - I'm thinking mainly of Christianity here - in my experience, tend not to allow individuals to defer their responsibility into the realm of some other world, and instead try to preach the importance of the individuals assuming control of their own lives. I went to an Anglican school, for instance, and the Chaplain - on the few occasions we heard him speak - rarely spoke of God. It was all about being moral, ensuring that one acts as morally as possible as often as possible. Anyone can commit a sin and repent the next day as in Catholicism, but the more moderate strains of Christianity tend to support my belief that the individual must be responsible for that which he freely does.
As for Buddhism, I have never had any complaints with it. While there are Deistic denominations of Buddhism (the Hari Krshnas for one) it is a primarily atheistic religion, that preaches the value of individually realised - rather than imparted - knowledge. Under Buddhism, one is responsible for what one does, and if one acts immorally there is no opportunity to repent for it, but rather one can expect the same treatment in return. It's a worthy religion, and I think if all other religions were dropped in favour of it, the world would be a much happier place.
| quote: | | As Arbiter said in the other thread, religion is the gun not the bullet. |
Yet a bullet on its own is entirely harmless. ;) |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Hehe, Ill asnwer on the weekend
:D |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
Okay. You don't really have to teach me Marxism, I do know what it is about, know about its history, its goals and so forth. However, as far as I have understood, Hegel was the one applying his dialectical materialism to questions of economy, whereas Marx adapted Hegel's thesis for a social/political approach. Both ideologies are surely based on the condemnation of capital/materialism. Marx was mainly "inspired" by the ongoing industrialisation and therefore the fact that his ideas only succeeded in unindustrialized/agricultural societies (Russia/China etc.)is histrocial irony. I think you mistake Marxism too much with Communism (or Lenin-Marxism). Initially Marxism aimed for a class-LESS society, the dictatorship of the proletariat was merely a means for the ends, the ends being th class-less society. And no classes means total equality, means independence and consequently liberty. Sadly Lenin changed that little part (surely because it seemed too optimistic and utopic) and began to organize the communist revolution and establish sovjets to controll the new society, ending up in yet another dictatorship with even less liberties.I'm using your "liberty" because your definition of "freedom" seems to be merely philosophical (well you quote Satre after all) and it seems as if your "freedom" is absolutely independent on the political circumstances, but is, if at all, limited by personal destiniy (financial potential, intelligence? etc.). The ability to choose lies primarly in the human itself, regardless of the society it lives in. Liberty would then be the pattern for political freedom.
| quote: | | "The system tells me, "you are compelled to have either this guy or that guy as your leader, so make your choice". Of course, having a choice of two is better than having a choice of one, but nonetheless my current situation has as much to do with what I am limited by, as what I am free to do. |
Look, in every deomcracy you are additionally given the PASSIVE voting rights. That is, if you really feel like changing something you could always candidate and pursue your own ideas. Of course your could again say, that your chances are limited by, say, your financial sitation, the biased media, your ugly looks or whatever BUT the chance is there, the political freedom is there.
| quote: | | How free are we, really, when wealth is propogated in that way? Sure, someone born poor has the potential to make money, but if he remains a slave to the circumstances that remain well out of his control - his scope of choice - then just how free is he |
Of course you're right in that it's impossible for every1 getting/becoming what he wishes and that one's destiny is unfortunately limited by the "starting point" situation. Then again, freedom according to your definition is the ability to choose, and as I already said, the extent to which you use your freedom/chances to choose determines your personal freedom. Meaning that the way itself is the goal. Some Ghetto kid has the freedom, can CHOOSE to, say, become a CEO. It sounds stupid and theoretical but that's it if I follow your definition of freedom.
As for religion..Buddhism sounds nice and all but I'm quite happy with Judaism still
:disbelief |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | | Okay. You don't really have to teach me Marxism, I do know what it is about, know about its history, its goals and so forth. |
Sorry, I know I can get a bit over the top with things like this, but I certainly wasn't trying to lecture you. :)
| quote: | | However, as far as I have understood, Hegel was the one applying his dialectical materialism to questions of economy, whereas Marx adapted Hegel's thesis for a social/political approach. |
Actually, it was the other way around.
Hegel's dialectic had nothing to do with materialism, it was Marx who introduced it into his dialectic to make it more scientific. Hegel applied his dialectic to many different things, but his goal was "metaphysical" (namely the attainment of the absolute ideal) and it was this area of Hegelianism that Marx rejected. What Marx did - to put it simply - was take the dialectic that Hegel applied to the rise and fall of nations and civilizations (Hegel believed - and Marx agreed with him - that he'd stumbled onto a stead-fast rule of history in this regard) and take it out of the metaphysical realm - that is that all societies are evolving, through their contradictory nature, towards the "absolute ideal" - and instead apply the dialectic to the historical evolutions of economy and class (instead of nations), using materialism in place of this "absolute ideal" as the underlying factor behind it all.
| quote: | | Both ideologies are surely based on the condemnation of capital/materialism. |
Marx obviously wasn't overly fond of capitalism, but I don't think that Hegel would have had too much against it - in fact, I'm not even sure that the concept of "capitalism" was even around in his day. As for materialism, Hegel never introduced it into his dialectic, and although Marx did, I don't necessarily think he held anything against it. While I don't pretend to fully understand the way Marx used the concept of materialism in his theories, materialism - as a tool of economic science - was used to justify his vision of socialism, and he used it to explain how socialism could work, and why capitalism was likely to be superceded by it.
Once again, I'm hardly an expert on Marxist theory, but the dialectical materialism uses a slightly different definition of the word "materialism". In today's parlance, materialism would refer to to desire to purchase and be surrounded by objects, where as Marx used materialism as an economic indicator, and as the basis for his "scientific" examination of class. So the definitions are a bit different I think, but, once again, I could be wrong.
| quote: | | I think you mistake Marxism too much with Communism (or Lenin-Marxism). Initially Marxism aimed for a class-LESS society, the dictatorship of the proletariat was merely a means for the ends, the ends being th class-less society. |
No, I understand that communism and Marxist socialism are different things, absolutely.
And I also understand that the quest for a classless society was what drove Marx towards his vision of socialism. He had noticed that inequality between the bourgeois and the proletariat, and the proletariat's displeasure with this, was the reasoning behind the advent of new systems of economics and the "revolutions" that occur from time to time within societies.
However, all I was trying to say (if, indeed, I said this at all) was that Marxism lends itself to inequality as the power of production is in the hands of a government, or, even worse, a single malevelant dictator. Unless everyone has an equal say in the way that production is carried out (as they do, in a sense, in a capitalistic society - demand/supply etc.) Marxism places absolute power in the hands of a few, and the question must be raised, how can we be sure that these people can be trusted? If we approach it from an historical angle, we can see that, as a rule, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It creates a massive rift between the ruling class and the society below it, which - even if it can't be measured in a materialistic sense - can certainly be measured in terms of inequality of power.
Unless the ruling class can subdue the internal antithesis against this power discrepancy (which is what Lenin, Stalin and others did by starving and murdering their own citizens) it will lead to a revolutionary synthesis of a different kind, where the conflict (opposition) is no longer reneging against the inequality of wealth, but rather the inequality of power. This potential rift between the classes, however, can neither be measured or predicted by Marxist materialism.
| quote: | | And no classes means total equality, means independence and consequently liberty. |
But, like I said before, only if the society is autonomous. If the society is governed by a small group of people, then Marxist socialism - at its most fundamental level - certainly promotes equality and liberty to a degree, but the people are neither independant nor "free". They are equal to the extent that they are all of the same class, but it still strikes me as mere semantics: all the people may be in the same class, considered "equal" in this society, but if we disregard class, just how equal are they? Are you familiar with Animal Farm?:
"While all animals are equal, some are more equal than others"
While this may be a criticism of Lenin or Stalin's communism rather than pure Marxism, it still raises a valid point about how socialism of this sort opens the door for exploitation of the masses, and can create a massive rift in the division of power (between the masses and the government). If someone is in a position of absolute power, then there is nothing to stop them from exploiting those underneath them and - once again - from an historical angle, we can see just how common it is.
If there is a way of avoiding this massive division of power in a socialist society, then I'd be interested to know what it is.
| quote: | | I'm using your "liberty" because your definition of "freedom" seems to be merely philosophical (well you quote Satre after all) and it seems as if your "freedom" is absolutely independent on the political circumstances, but is, if at all, limited by personal destiniy (financial potential, intelligence? etc.). |
No, freedom is very much dependants on ones "circumstance" (that is, the factors external to him that he has no control over - political or otherwise). In fact both Satre and Camus lived through Nazi occupation of France, and this had a major influence of the conceptions of freedom. It comes up frequently in their writings, and one need only look at Camus' novel "the Plague" (loosely based on his experiences in occupied France) to see just how dependant one's freedom is on one's political stance.
Freedom corresponds directly with choice, so if there are any external factors in one's situation that reduce the ability to choose or the spectrum of choices available then we can say that they are less "free".
With regards to socialism (Marxist or otherwise) the desire to create an equal society seems to have over-ridden the need for "liberty" (the preservation of personal sanctity) and "freedom" (what choices are available to members of that society). Thus, if I can sum up the problem that socialism faces, is that is preaches responsibility (of one citizen to all his "comrades") without upholding the necessity for freedom (allowing people as much autonomy as possible in the way they live their life). Freedom and responsibility are directly related so any society that attempts to preach them in unequal amounts is doomed to shoot itself in the foot.
For the record, capitalism tends to face the opposite problem - that is it preaches freedom without responsibility.
| quote: | | The ability to choose lies primarly in the human itself, regardless of the society it lives in. Liberty would then be the pattern for political freedom. |
As I said in my previous post though, liberty and freedom are unrelated things, and as such one can have liberty without freedom and vice-versa. Liberty - in the evolution of western society - has undeniably increased over time, but I don't think that socialism goes to any great lengths to protect it. According to my dictionary, a (partial) definition of liberty is this:
"Freedom from constraint, captivity, slavery or tyranny: the bounds within which certain privilages are enjoyed"
Can we say that socialism in any way protects people from "constraint, captivity, slavery or tyranny"? It places huge amounts of power in the hands of a few, and unless we can be certain that the goals of these few are "altruistic" (and how could we ever know that?) it spells a recipe for disaster. While the dangers, admittedly, lie within the misapplication of Marxism rather than within the Marxist doctrine itself, it has to be said that Marxism leaves itself wide open to misapplication of this sort. Liberty becomes an endangered concept, and freedom is dismissed all together in favour of societal responsibility.
While I do agree that liberty - to an extent - is "the pattern for political freedom" I do not believe that Marxism can be accused of going to any great lengths to protect it.
| quote: | | Some Ghetto kid has the freedom, can CHOOSE to, say, become a CEO. It sounds stupid and theoretical but that's it if I follow your definition of freedom. |
But is that an available choice for a ghetto kid though? Is it in his power to become a CEO?
He has no control over the education he is given. If he lives in a poor area, I can only presume that the local quality of education is poor, and that his parents lack the resources to choose an alternative. You could argue that he invested all his time in his education and choose to come out with a good job, but again I would argue that the choice is largely out of his hands. If he can't afford to by the necessary books to educate himself properly, or if the colleges are biased against him because of the poor quality of the school he attended than where is his choice? His circumstance, really, severely limits his freedom. And this is why, as I said in the other thread, it is important to ensure that we are socially responsible (remember what I said about the lack of responsibility is a capitalistic society?) and at least give the kid a chance by allowing him to start at the same place as everyone else. Then, if he still chooses to drop out of school and deal drugs then at least he was given the opportunity to choose - he was free and made his own (if misguided) choice.
And that's all freedom really is: ensuring that the choices are there, and that they are accessible, regardless of one's starting point.
| quote: | | As for religion..Buddhism sounds nice and all but I'm quite happy with Judaism still |
Haha, each to their own..... :D |
|
|
| Izzy |
Renegade, Trancegiant, you guys deserve a standing ovation (sp?) for your posts, excellent stuff!
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade Unless the ruling class can subdue the internal antithesis against this power discrepancy (which is what Lenin, Stalin and others did by starving and murdering their own citizens) it will lead to a revolutionary synthesis of a different kind, where the conflict (opposition) is no longer reneging against the inequality of wealth, but rather the inequality of power. This potential rift between the classes, however, can neither be measured or predicted by Marxist materialism.
|
great point!
| quote: |
They are equal to the extent that they are all of the same class, but it still strikes me as mere semantics: all the people may be in the same class, considered "equal" in this society, but if we disregard class, just how equal are they? Are you familiar with Animal Farm?:
"While all animals are equal, some are more equal than others"
|
im not too familiar with animal farm (missed that english class i guess, hehe)... can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean here? did you mean that other then class to define everyone as equal we are all different? |
|
|
|
|
