StarGateWars Forums

understanding because (call me dumb) i just dont get it and i appeal to those of you who are better educated and have a bigger vocabulary than me...


we in the west are supposedly living in whats known as a "free society". as i understand the term "free society", its the opposite of say a country like China or the old USSR and Nazi Germany. i am supposedly living in a society where i am free to live how i want to live, raise my kids as i see fit, make my own decisions and think how i like to think. the reality is very much different though...isn't it?

i live in a free society, well, lets look at that in greater detail...i am taxed to and till death, i am monitored all my life, i cant do anything like driving, fishing, self employment and a whole host of other things without a licence, i cant go to (if i wanted to) school and learn what i want to learn until a certain age when i am free to choose subjects that interest me...oh wait, i have to choose from those subjects they make available....unless i wait to leave school and pay to learn what i want to learn. my freedoms are under constant attack from all sides from local national and international Govts. i have to recycle or get fined, i cant use critical thinking and point fingers at the Govt without being ridiculed...i cant even call the Govt traitorous-murderous-satan-worshipping-thieving-scumbags without being looked at by the rest of society as if i'm a "nutcase", who then resort to calling me names and attacking me personally without once doing an ounce of research for themselves.
i can now be stopped without reason and or for any reason. RFID tags are now in products so my purchases can be tracked and traced, and if i want to go on holiday i have to now submit to a dehumanising and humiliating full body scan...oh, lets not forget that i live in a democratic society , meaning that, 99% of the people can take away the rights of the remaining 1%, better than that, 51% can take away the rights of 49%.

and thats just a small example! so i ask you...where the hell is the freedom in that?!


i intent to make this topic even deeper, because up until i had computer problems recently, i had a copy of blacks law dictionary on my PC (cant remember which edition i had). its the same law dictionary the powers that be and the courts go by, they only use blacks law dictionary for all laws and understanding of laws. in blacks law dictionary it states that a democracy is a socialist form of Govt...

keep that in mind when replying please.

alot of the things you mentioned though are necessary. i mean you stretch the term free society with the have to learn what they say stuff in school

but you concentrate on FREE and not SOCIETY

if you dont recycle your country will become (even more) filth. the learning structure of schools is there for a reason, (generally) it works. people have licences to drive cars as a matter of keeping track of capability, to ensure safety, and full body scans are a safety measure (albeit slightly over teh top).

if you want a perfectly free society in the literal sense you portray, youll get anarchy

how will a free society create anarchy? a better educated populace would create a society which doesn't require a nanny state to tell me what's right and wrong and throw me in jail if i decide to beat up or kill a mass murdering thieving rapist who decides to break into my home to do me and my family some harm.

as for licensing, so i should be licensed for fishing or driving? i would look up the term "licence" in blacks law dictionary if i was you!

damit, i cant find a blacks law dictionary on line giving the definition of the word "licence"...anyone have a link?

Anarchy would be the absolute form of a free society, that is it's definition.



G, we don't live in a free society. We live in a "Free Society". An artificial construct. "Free Society" doesn't stand for free society, because as Solmyr said, a free society would be anarchic. We live in a society that has been, intentionally, named "Free Society" in order to elude those of great naivete. (Mark the similarity to "ye of little faith"..)
It's all religion. The religion of "freedom", the thing we blindly worship as the highest goal in life. Unfortunately, we are so very blinded by our desire for freedom that we don't see the restrictiveness of our society. Well, how would we? Compared to Taliban, we live in great freedom. But to call ourselves "Free Society".. well, let's just say it's a neat branding trick.


*grin* We're screwed, G, and we continue to be screwed until we're dead. I thought you knew this?

Juliette wrote:

*grin* We're screwed, G, and we continue to be screwed until we're dead. I thought you knew this?

we're only screwed because we allow the powers that be to screw us. we could take a page out of this guys book!

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=90ELleC ... re=related

Juliette wrote:Anarchy would be the absolute form of a free society, that is it's definition.



G, we don't live in a free society. We live in a "Free Society". An artificial construct. "Free Society" doesn't stand for free society, because as Solmyr said, a free society would be anarchic. We live in a society that has been, intentionally, named "Free Society" in order to elude those of great naivete. (Mark the similarity to "ye of little faith"..)
It's all religion. The religion of "freedom", the thing we blindly worship as the highest goal in life. Unfortunately, we are so very blinded by our desire for freedom that we don't see the restrictiveness of our society. Well, how would we? Compared to Taliban, we live in great freedom. But to call ourselves "Free Society".. well, let's just say it's a neat branding trick.


*grin* We're screwed, G, and we continue to be screwed until we're dead. I thought you knew this?

Freedom and the concept of a "free society" is an illusion. But anarchy as freedom? Hardly... Anarchy would be doing as you pleased with disregard to any consequence, thus enforcing yourself on the choice of others, sinking their own freedom of choice.
As to freedom as a complex issue in modern times, well one cannot even begin to hope we'll ever have that. Let me give you though something that may sway your view on this:
What is freedom?
Freedom is having the choice to silence yourself when in from of an argument.
- Its a lot more complex then this but i'd have to go into technical terms so i'll put it this way: freedom is having the possibility NOT to act when in front of a situation, not the LIBERTY to do what you please.

On religion...i can tell you God does not want blind faith, does not want you not knowing one thing or another. And most importantly, DOES NOT EVEN WANT TO BE WORSHIPED! WHAT?! Oh, yes...God wants you to help your fellow man in whatever way you can and live a life dedicated to the quality of life and love of all the people you know. Sure, knowing him and dedicating the biggest part of your life to him would be ideal...
Our own fears and desires dissolve our freedom and make up petty and cruel even to ourselves...

seeing what others think about freedom, their definition (or other peoples interpretation/definition) and perception of it makes for VERY interesting reading.

Ugh, I didn't say freedom was the subject of Christianity's reverence. I said freedom as a principle is held as the highest goal in the Western (notably not the Christian) World. I didn't say "God wants this, or that, or something else", in fact, I keep God out of this conversation due to the complexity of introducing an all powerful being into a debate on freedom. Had no intention of claiming God wants anything, and I stringently oppose the suggestion I did.



Absolute freedom is anarchy. Not all anarchy is absolute freedom, though.
Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want unconstrained by outside influences. "What you want, when you want, how you want."
Anarchy is a state without constraints. See the link?

We're constrained, and we're said to be free. That's a conflict of definitions, and I don't see why we should waste our time on such trivialities, Ashu.
If we were absolutely free, I would be able to kill Billy when I feel the urge. The fact that I can't, I feel compelled to not kill him because 'society would frown upon it' and the fact that there are consequences to my action, mean that I am not absolutely free.
By definition, a 'free society' cannot exist, because 'society' implies constraints on the 'freedom'. Consequentially, we should read 'free society' as 'a society relatively free compared to other societies'. How interesting. Because by that reading, an 'anarchic society' is impossible as well. Anarchy, as in a situation of absolutely freedom, would mean absolute individualism. If absolute anarchy means absolute individualism, as indivisibility, that would imply that a situation in which interpersonal ties have grown to symbiotic proportions can be seen as an example of complete freedom. If one cannot distinguish the individual from the society, that individual can be said to be completely free. Any actions that individual commits, would be actions that society commits. However, only if that society would die with the passing of an individual member, creating a new society in which the former member's function has been taken up by the remaining society. Similarly the addition of a member would create a new society, as the former individual no longer exists. Such a situation would be the description of an absolutely free, an absolutely dynamic, and an absolutely inclusive society.

Anyway. This is a question from before the beginning of philosophy.. some say it is the question that sparked it. We're not going to answer it.


There's a lot of confusion going around in regards to the difference between freedom and liberty.

Juliette wrote:Ugh, I didn't say freedom was the subject of Christianity's reverence. I said freedom as a principle is held as the highest goal in the Western (notably not the Christian) World. I didn't say "God wants this, or that, or something else", in fact, I keep God out of this conversation due to the complexity of introducing an all powerful being into a debate on freedom. Had no intention of claiming God wants anything, and I stringently oppose the suggestion I did.



Absolute freedom is anarchy. Not all anarchy is absolute freedom, though.
Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want unconstrained by outside influences. "What you want, when you want, how you want."
Anarchy is a state without constraints. See the link?

We're constrained, and we're said to be free. That's a conflict of definitions, and I don't see why we should waste our time on such trivialities, Ashu.
If we were absolutely free, I would be able to kill Billy when I feel the urge. The fact that I can't, I feel compelled to not kill him because 'society would frown upon it' and the fact that there are consequences to my action, mean that I am not absolutely free.
By definition, a 'free society' cannot exist, because 'society' implies constraints on the 'freedom'. Consequentially, we should read 'free society' as 'a society relatively free compared to other societies'. How interesting. Because by that reading, an 'anarchic society' is impossible as well. Anarchy, as in a situation of absolutely freedom, would mean absolute individualism. If absolute anarchy means absolute individualism, as indivisibility, that would imply that a situation in which interpersonal ties have grown to symbiotic proportions can be seen as an example of complete freedom. If one cannot distinguish the individual from the society, that individual can be said to be completely free. Any actions that individual commits, would be actions that society commits. However, only if that society would die with the passing of an individual member, creating a new society in which the former member's function has been taken up by the remaining society. Similarly the addition of a member would create a new society, as the former individual no longer exists. Such a situation would be the description of an absolutely free, an absolutely dynamic, and an absolutely inclusive society.

Anyway. This is a question from before the beginning of philosophy.. some say it is the question that sparked it. We're not going to answer it.


There's a lot of confusion going around in regards to the difference between freedom and liberty.

exactly liek i stated, a true free society would be anarchy, where as liberty is markedly different

my bad for assuming people would use common sense and think i never meant a society should be free to do whatever the hell they like whenever they like. i should have been more clear.

a society needs laws and rules to live by, so long as they are minimal laws, don't intrude on ANY-bodies right to privacy, free-speech and self protection.

i should have the right to deal with anyone with as much force as is needed-who enters my home, so if someone breaks into my home and i catch him stealing and nothing more, then i should have the right to beat the hell out of him and teach him a lesson. by the same token, if i wake up in the middle of the night and catch someone with a knife in their hand its safe to say they are not their looking for some cheese and they brought the knife along just in case we don't have one in the house, i should have the right to kill that person if that's what it takes to make sure my family stays safe...instead of being dragged into court and sued by the assailant or the state.

so, i'm not and would never say we should all live 100% free, if i kill or harm anyone, steal or damage anything there should rightly be consequences.

but when the Govt is so pervasive in everyone's life, then i'm sorry, that society cannot ever claim they are "free".

"privacy, free-speech and self protection"

this is what eu, north america define by free soceity. To have freedom of thought and expression to the degree where it does not harm those who live with you. The sticky bit comes from where you draw the line at "harm".

Thriller wrote:"privacy, free-speech and self protection"

this is what eu, north america define by free soceity. To have freedom of thought and expression to the degree where it does not harm those who live with you. The sticky bit comes from where you draw the line at "harm".

I think the sticky bit is more with "who" draws the line, not so much "where". Because if we trust the "who" drawing the line, we'll accept any "where" they'll say.

Juliette wrote:

Thriller wrote:"privacy, free-speech and self protection"

this is what eu, north america define by free soceity. To have freedom of thought and expression to the degree where it does not harm those who live with you. The sticky bit comes from where you draw the line at "harm".

I think the sticky bit is more with "who" draws the line, not so much "where". Because if we trust the "who" drawing the line, we'll accept any "where" they'll say.

I care more about the "where" since i don't trust any politician

Thriller wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Thriller wrote:"privacy, free-speech and self protection"

this is what eu, north america define by free soceity. To have freedom of thought and expression to the degree where it does not harm those who live with you. The sticky bit comes from where you draw the line at "harm".

I think the sticky bit is more with "who" draws the line, not so much "where". Because if we trust the "who" drawing the line, we'll accept any "where" they'll say.

I care more about the "where" since i don't trust any politician

So your politicians draw the line for you?

Juliette wrote:

Thriller wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Thriller wrote:"privacy, free-speech and self protection"

this is what eu, north america define by free soceity. To have freedom of thought and expression to the degree where it does not harm those who live with you. The sticky bit comes from where you draw the line at "harm".

I think the sticky bit is more with "who" draws the line, not so much "where". Because if we trust the "who" drawing the line, we'll accept any "where" they'll say.

I care more about the "where" since i don't trust any politician

So your politicians draw the line for you?

I'm confused? i'm not one to blindly follow a party line.