So, continuing on my binge to try and get people to use gen serious for serious things, I write another highly opinionated topic. Hopefully this one will get more than one reply. But hey, if you swing enough times you'll eventually hit.

Now, a short intoduction so I can clarify and so you know where I'm coming from. I had a discussion with LoF and AFH over what truly constitutes freedom. And in that, several specific questions arised. We'll get to those later though, let's get a proper discussion going before we poke holes in eachothers theories. So here's mine.

Freedom is the ability to choose with natural consequence as the governing law. In principal, this is extremely simple. It says that I must have control over my own actions, and says that the external actions are governed by nothing but the actions of others and of nature. There is no structure here to control. Everyone is equal in status. However, even that has its obvious flaw: Its wrong. As AFH said, even the laws of physics impose upon your freedom. Now, that being said, I look at my own theory as the best choice realistically. If my theory were to exist, it would breed a very harsh world that doesn't look kindly upon people who can't handle it. Personally, I think that if you can't handle it you're an idiot. Cowards are smart, people who can handle themselves in a fight are smart enough to maintain the proper attitude and a degree of caution in situations while still having the skill to back it up. People who build connections are smart. Communities are smart. That kind of thing. Back on track though. As you can see, I'm not a fan of laws, though structure is still helpful. So that's when I consider myself to be free. So if you want to meet me, when the apocalypse happens, just look for the guy grinning like an idiot as he runs around trying to survive.

But at which point do you consider yourself to truly be free? Is a "free country" really free for you? Are natures laws not enough of a restriction that people want to be controlled even more? I wouldn't be surprised if the general population were that masochistic. They're bred for it, anyways. (Not that I look at that as necessarily a bad thing.) Now, discuss. Give me something to argue.

_________________

I know a qoute from a song that makes me think about said subject "The greatest form of control is when you think you're free when you're being fundamentally manipulated and dictated to. One form of dictatorship is being in a prison cell and you can see the bars and touch them. The other one is sitting in a prison cell but you can't see the bars but you think you're free." The thought of being in a prison where you can't see the bars are a tad worrying, considering this form of prison continues to evolve and they find new methods of manipulating you, the social media, the education systems, and so on.

Total anarchy would be my ideal freedom, but this can not be achived as a society with anarchy is impossible to maintain, I enjoy that perfect ballance, organized chaos which I find very hard to come by today. I don't find being able to express your opinions and thoughts to be freedom, but going through with those thoughts and actually achiving them, it all starts with a great idea but they can't be went through with in all cases as it has a cost, today that price is called prison.

Scientifically I don't belive we can break the laws of nature, we can bend them to our will but I don't belive we can break them in this world at least, maybe in another dimension. As there are laws of nature which has been proven, I don't belive we can ever be truly free unless those are broken and anarchy is brought forward. It's boring being trapped by those laws, humans have unbelivable capabilities which we are not able to perform due to said laws, it would be total chaos and the world would be destroyed eventually, which we will do either way. Destroying ourselves and each other are in human nature, humanity is a ticking timebomb my friend.

I've given it some significant thought; FH is - to my vision, a land of minimal rules; a frontier nation, so to speak. But where does ones' freedoms end, and others begin? I've given thought to a lot of factors. There's lots of issues here on that regard.

But that's not what we're talking about. So let's get to the point. I believe in enforcing as little rules as possible; as long as others understand that they're being given a responsibility to allow others the same freedoms they themselves enjoy.

Such is the life of an admin. Thinking these big thoughts when I should be coding more stupid sex kitten games.

_________________

Freedom is subjective it seems. Who really gets to decide who gets what freedoms and why? Why do some get more freedoms than others? Are we ever really free?

_________________

I believe higher should initially get full freedoms, and that the only restrictions to these freedoms will be the laws of nature and the fortitude of others around them, The only true thing I would ever restrict, is murder, this would be the only reason for any governmental institution at all, and, I also think that this right to life should be waiverable if desired, this is become murder is the ultimate destruction of a person's freedoms.

No, We are never truly free until we have total control over the entirety of the world, till we have all the choices, till our perception shapes reality and that and that alone, with no laws of physics or anything of the sort

_________________

Well, in some way our perception does shape reality. I'd say more of our minds shaping reality. Until we are all gods in our own right. A goal someday achievable, I'm sure.

_________________

In my sociology class, my teacher opened with "Society constructs reality. It constructs the truth. Everything you know and do is because society tells you it is so. You put on pants in the morning because that is the reality society created for you. You grew up knowing that Pluto was a planet because society deemed it so through science. And now it is no longer a planet, because society once again deems it so through science. But who decided that the classification had to change? Who decided that the science was correct? Who decides what anything truly is? If you really think about it, it all comes from someone's mind, and the ideas spread mind to mind until it becomes so known that it has to be true."

_________________

I always was on argument with many of my more or less embracing the idea of anarchy friends. My conclusion is that ironicly you embrace true freedom trough obeying the rules, but not because they are establised but because you belive in them and you agree with them.
Many see freedom as total anarchy, living outside the laws of society or order, well you may achive such freedom by living on isolated places as some kind of hikikomori or hermit but, going with that though deeper - is not beeing able to live among other humans also a violation of ones freedom?

So, the only solution is where you have your own personal rules that are simillar to those of the society you live in. That way law doesn't matter to you because you wouldn't break it for your own personal reasons not because it exists. Restrictions doesn't matter that way so you're truly free.
I remember a good quote of one american writer Kurt Vonnegut, form one of his novels Breakfast of Champions that was often sratching this topic: "Livle like that you could say to God in judgement day: I was very good man, thou i didn't belived in you."

Some say that that way you're slave to your own mind and you're enslaving your conciousness. I rather think that it's better to control your mind than beeing controlled by your emotions, cause if you have control - you have freedom.

I would rather live like a slave then reform my idea of freedom.

_________________

Remon, i don't want to offend you in any way but think you can only say that because you've never been and lived like a real slave to anyone.
My people, nation, always had a great passion of hatred for everything that represents any form of slavery, mostly because of our history, in here we take a great deal in educating people on this topic.

The worst kind of slavery is when you're slave to your own mind, your needs and your instincts, but also to your convictions.
Most civilised country in europe started both World Wars because its citzens were convinced that it's for the greater good and that it would free them from the taint of other nationalities.

But we are talking about oposite to the slavery, so let's get back to the topic.
Your theory, idea of freedom, your "the best choice realistically" has also a major flaw - you take freedom as greatest of values, ok but it shouldn't be absolute as you see it.
In reality what you sugest is only half true - civilisation was created with it's laws and restrictions for people so they could live in comfort and have sense of security. If you call it slavery then i can say that you're slave to the idea of anarchy cause you would rather suffer than take more logical point of view.

World made by civilised people shouldn't look like Fallout game where weak hide under ground or in isolated places, most of cities are ruled by mafia or militaristic fractions where hierachy and streght is absolute rule.
The only thing i can agree on is that survival of the fittest isn't such a bad idea since in our world i can see many problems that are created because of lack of that factor humans life.

Again, you seem to use logical in your own sense and believe it applies to all. But first of all, did you not read my idea of freedom? Any way you look at that, I consider us all slaves. Slaves to nature, slaves to the universe, slaves to society, etc. It doesn't matter how far you distance yourselves from any of those things. Until they no longer exist, or you can separate yourself from them entirely, you are a slave.

Who are you to tell me what I should value above all else, then? Anyways, yes, originally civilization was created as a place to exchange a bit of freedom with the ability to live without the fear of other people killing you, or to protect you from wild animals, and to allow you to get goods from other people that you wouldn't know how to get yourself. To relieve the strain of a harsh world by just a little. And then people took advantage of that, and imposed laws that would benefit them. Until everyone got used to it, and thought that they were being protected. But that's beside the point. The point is that I wouldn't choose to live in those places, because I would prefer to be as close to free as possible. If the world looked like a hellhole because of it, I could deal with that. As for the rest of society, I don't really care what they do. Just so long as they don't impose on me.

I don't aim for anarchy, anarchy is simply a side-effect. And not even a necessary one. You just can't see another alternative. In fact, I don't think anyone can. Anarchy is deeply rooted into our society as the only way to break from it, while it's highly likely that's not the case. However, it doesn't matter what way I get there. And if you call me a slave to my own desires, a desire to be free, then anyone ever who has made a choice is also a slave to their own desires. My desires are a conscious decision. If I lived to eat and fuck and survive, I would be little more than natures bitch. Instead, I choose to fight that. All for the sake of breaking myself from shackles. And even if i were to consider myself a slave to my desires, that is the last thing I would free myself from. You can't be free without slavery, so I will embrace that as it is.

_________________

In 1984, for example, the slaves were the only free ones

_________________

Wait, could you explain this?

_________________

The "slaves", were called proles, and they had all the freedom, they had thier dirty magazines, thier ways of life, could do whatever they wanted and such, but the Party, which was considered the upper class, was shrouded in massive amounts of lies telling them that freedom was slavery, war was peace, ignorance was strength, and they beleived it, it fell under double speak

Interesting stuff, but a depressing tale, so depressing, it was difficult to read

_________________