StarGateWars Forums

Free Society, is an acknowledged state where as an individual you are allowed, and I stress that point readily ALLOWED ALLOWED ALLOWED, by the people who control the society to have certain liberties, despite all humans being born with the inherent right of self governing, we are bound by structures that have been in place far longer than any government, and are in fact all chained within this system, for how can you break societal bonds without being labeled a criminal? A hermit might survive on his own, without any influence from the rest of the world and thusly create his own truly free society, however that self-same hermit might intend upon taking a family, and because of the doctrines ingrained within him from birth, he will raise his family a certain way, and this will spiral as his children grow and supplant him, and take wives of their own, giving more children this ingrained look...until centuries and centuries later, there is now a new definition of Free Society, and this Society is bound by it's own laws. Man will not exist without idealogical, and sociological constraints. We are all taught what is right and wrong as a group, and we all learn our basic morals from a more or less standardized point of view.

If we could live completely free without any ties or constraints, you would have anarchy, however this anarchy would not last very long, people have an innate desire to be led, or to lead, and so a charismatic person would take charge before to long had passed, and thus a new society would rise up, and a new definition would be necessary. Humans as a whole are to blind and stubborn to realize that as they live and die, the society they are a part of does not change with them. This is why a truly free society is a pipe dream, just as communism, true marxist communism, is a pipe dream. The same inherent problem infects both systems like a plague, human nature.


I think I have talked long enough for you to understand my point, I rarely post in this section as nothing here typically catches my eye, but I decided that since I am going to be doing a lot more writing in the next coming months I might as well brush up on my rhetoric, I hope you all do not mind appeasing a young man, his natural inclinations, in fact your help would be appreciated.

great post for the most part...but can someone please tell me why you are all stuck on "a truly free society=anarchy"???????

lets stop that from here on in. am not saying we all live free as the birds and bees and have no rules

I am not stuck on it just want to point it out, to be truly free means to have no governing influence, and no governing influence is anarchy

the point is, that's NOT what this discussion is about

[KMA]Avenger wrote:the point is, that's NOT what this discussion is about

could have fooled me

Hitchkok wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:the point is, that's NOT what this discussion is about

could have fooled me

"Wit, and't be thy will, put me into good fooling! Those wits that think they have thee do very oft prove fools; and I that am sure I lack thee may pass for a wise man. For what says Quinapalus? 'Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.'"

nice hitch

you seriously thought this was a discussion about anarchy?

[KMA]Avenger wrote:you seriously thought this was a discussion about anarchy?

I can't see why you have a problem discussing ararchy as related to freedom of action

[KMA]Avenger wrote:you seriously thought this was a discussion about anarchy?

yes, for reasons posted by others.

and as i've told others, i assumed (my bad for assuming anything in this part of the forum) that people would use common sense and not think i mean completely do away with society, rules and Govt so we could all live as we please.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:and as i've told others, i assumed (my bad for assuming anything in this part of the forum) that people would use common sense and not think i mean completely do away with society, rules and Govt so we could all live as we please.

so, what did you mean?

[KMA]Avenger wrote:and as i've told others, i assumed (my bad for assuming anything in this part of the forum) that people would use common sense and not think i mean completely do away with society, rules and Govt so we could all live as we please.

Then maybe the title should have been Liberty vs Rule of law or Social justice in the modern world?

why? after all, i dont understand how we can say we have any liberty or freedom when we have so much Govt intrusion in our lives...more so than ANY other time in history.


is this freedom?

google Votergate

and have a look at this:

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=h ... b82dea0b1a

is that freedom?

[KMA]Avenger wrote:why? after all, i dont understand how we can say we have any liberty or freedom when we have so much Govt intrusion in our lives...more so than ANY other time in history.


is this freedom?

google Votergate

and have a look at this:

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=h ... b82dea0b1a

is that freedom?

"your freedom ends where another person's begins"
you don't have the liberty to go on a shooting spree, in order that everyone else could have the liberty to keep their lives.
any other law in an enlightend liberal regime is (in theory) meant to uphold this principle. that's one meaning of freedom and liberty.
the other is your liberty to leave the regime incase you don't like it. most democracies allow you to renounce citizenship and leave their territories, thus liberating you from their laws.
and how did the torries' leader put it? "don't be afraid to throw your government out of office", wasn't it? well, you have that liberty, also.
do some reading regarding political philoshophy. it's quite intresting.
hobbes' "leviathan" and jean-jacques rousseau's "du contract social" might be a good place to start, and Niccolò Machiavelli's "the prince" might allow further insights, by means of comprative reading.

Hitchkok wrote:[ and Niccolò Machiavelli's "the prince" might allow further insights, by means of comprative reading.

Who don't know what your suggesting, imagine the convolution if he starts legitimizing his conspiracies through Machiavelli.