Author
|
Topic: A world without countries or governments
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 10 October 2008 04:27 PM
Warning: a bit of a rant.Lately… I have been wondering if it is possible to live without having an individual or organization controlling my life. I do not feel free. There are people and organizations dictating me how to live my life. There are restrictions on my movements and activities. I have been granted citizenship to a country just because I am born here thus placing further unwanted control over me. Is it possible to be truly free? Note: I will likely edit this opening post later tonight.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 11 October 2008 09:37 AM
quote: Is it possible to be truly free?
Webgear, we usually try to deal with issues with a little more meat on them, here. It is the one of the great questions of all time. If we skip a good many centuries of the history of how people have tried to answer it, we could answer it by saying it's an ongoing compromise between the interactions of your freedoms and everyone else's. I don't know that anyone in the history of humanity has ever thought they were getting a fair, perfect deal. Except for perhaps William Selkirk for a few years. And he seemed to dislike his complete freedom. In trying to come to grips with it, not just esoterically, but in how it all fits with you individually, I think you have to start your journey by trying to understand, warts and all, what we, as a species are, and what makes us tick. Of course, there are no perfect answers there, either. Our understanding is, well, incomplete. I do not think there will ever be a world without countries or governments. But, our notions of countries and governments will certainly change.
[ 11 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 11 October 2008 04:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
You could start with marriage counselling.
I just quoted you in the feminist forum.
yuk it up, funny boy.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 11 October 2008 04:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
The detractors would almost certainly call such a body a single party state, where the state was in essence the party.
I was imagining something along the lines of an organization that gave technical assistance to independant candidates. Of course, they'd have to be vetted for certain things in order to get assistance. But, it wouldn't be for political ideology-- unless things like mysogyny or racism can be called a political ideology. But, it would have to be basically non-partizan in nature. I'm not sure how far the assitance could go before it legally ventured into the realm of an official "party". You know, my ideal image of democracy does away with elections and replaces them with representatives chosen by lot. Elections and democracy don't mix.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 11 October 2008 07:47 PM
quote: Warning: a bit of a rant.
Yes and no (there will always be property taxes). What is freedom to you? I think it is subjective. But if you mean it in the way I think you mean it, then you can't be free of government, ever, if you can't be free of business. Government exists for business. The evolution of legislation and regulation is to corral all of us into a contrived market place where all transactions are digital and take place between regulated consumer demand and protected corporate suppliers. To be free of the government then, is to be as self-sufficient where one can, and trade in cash and/or barter where one can't. In other words, one must be free of sanctioned trade to be free of corporate management of the economy and, finally, free of government. Do you want to be that free? [ 11 October 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 12 October 2008 06:50 AM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: I mean that a legislative body which was not based on adversarial party system would be deemed to be a one party state, since the state itself would the sole functioning cohesive political aparatus through which organized political activity would take place. Thus it would be indistinguishable from a state where party and state were wedded together. The difference between having one party, and no parties is essentially semantic.
I'm not sure. Maybe it could be spun that way, but I think a legilative body that is made up of independant representatives whose votes are not whipped is different from the experience of one party states where the representatives votes are whipped. Sometimes literally.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874
|
posted 12 October 2008 07:09 PM
Warning, a bit of my own rant:The role of the state (and you can tell one is in debate club when he uses those 5 words) and indeed the entire raison d'etre of the state is to protect some of its citizens. In the ideal egalitaraian democracy I want everyone to strive for, it is to protect all of its citizens equally. In an aristocracy, it is to protect a powerful group of citizens. In an absolute dictator ship: to protect one man. So sorry - no - you cannot be entirely "free". For instance, in the most extreme case, you do not have the freedom to arbitrarily execute who you want, and I don't want you - or anyone else - to hold that power as an individual. You do not have the freedom to hunt or mine in certain protected lands and therefore endanger vulnerable species, reduce biodiversity, and by proxy, endanger the rest of human civilization (even by an infinitesimal fraction) I too, kind of hate the fact that, for the most part, we don't get to choose what country we live in and what laws we are governed by. But I do think I, personally, caught a break by living in Canada. We have freedoms many countries don't have: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to democratically choose what government we want to live under, and influence others who share the burden of making that decision, Freedom to befriend and fall in love with and marry who we want (as long as the other consents, of course) Democracy and democratic government is a massive, ugly and beautiful compromise that allows most citizens to live under tolerable conditions. It also sets up an environment where we can freely advocate for those who we believe live in intolerable conditions. Its not perfect, its far from fucking perfect, but its the closest thing we have to it, from the perspective of the broad society. And by the way, I'm not saying "you should be happy you ungrateful bastard". I'm just providing my own best answer to your question. Try to find something to do for a while that makes you happy (not drugs), and if that fails, perhaps see a therapist. [ 12 October 2008: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092
|
posted 14 October 2008 06:29 PM
Well, we can hardly ask, "can we be really free?" until we first ask, "what do we mean by freedom?" What do you mean when you use this word, Webgear? What sort of freedom are you after?For instance, Taoists believe that true freedom is surrendering to "the way", the mystical patterns and forces that govern/compose all creation. In this way you are "free" from the confusions, desires, and insecurities of the human race. Of course, in the classical western sense of having unlimited powers and options, you wouldn't be "free" at all by this model, since all your actions would be in perfect integration with the Tao, and as such basically predetermined. Of course, you would still be choosing this path with every moment, but you see my point. I suspect you're talking about the classical western sense of freedom, the freedom of the individual to make any choice available to them, without external coercion, and of course, as others have said, there's only one way to get this, which is total desertion of human society. There are still places on this planet, polluted and overindustrialised as it is, where a guy can eke out a bare subsistence from the land and disappear from the radar of nations, their laws, and their various bodies of enforcement. Of course, you would live an incredibly simple life, "free" from all the accomplishments of civilisation, or the rewards of human interaction. Perhaps it's a logical equation that by increasing our freedom to make the choices available to us, we must severely limit those available choices. The lone wilderness survivor has very few decisions to make, though all of them are "free" in the sense of involving no coercion. But then, that's not really true either, is it? You would be free from human coercion, but far more subject to the dictates of nature than a person who chose to stay in society and fly under the radar in their own way, say by taking a low-responsibility job and having few ambitions. In fact, you'd spend pretty much all your time negotiating with your environment for simple survival. All your actions would be determined by this, while part-time video store clerks would have to put in their twenty hours a week or so, but could do as they like with the rest of their time, within the limits of their meager paycheques. My point is that there's no such thing as absolute freedom, and if there was it would probably be a nightmare. If life was like a holo-deck where we got everything we wanted instantly, it would quickly lose all meaning. Life is all about a compromise of freedoms. This is the basis of all interaction. Hell, the reason animal life exists on earth is because certain simple cells formed a symbiotic relationship with other cells to create more complex cells. It locked them into an arrangement that they couldn't get out of, but it made them a more powerful unit, and hence a more successful organism. So to my mind, hankering after "freedom", as some abstract notion makes no sense. You have to intelligently negotiate with the freedoms you possess, to achieve the freedoms that you're after. Discern what it is you want, what you're willing to give up, and make society an offer. No doubt it will be rejected, as first offers often are, and society will make a counteroffer, etc. I think happy people are people who can accept this reality and manage to create a tolerable truce of freedoms within the structure they are part of. We're lucky enough to live in a vaguely diverse and democratic society, which is more than most people get, so a fair amount of negotiation is open to us, and most people, if not too outrageous in their ambitions, can find such a truce if they work at achieving it.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 19 October 2008 04:08 PM
quote: Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Webgear, we usually try to deal with issues with a little more meat on them, here. [ 11 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
OK...how about this...is it possible to get a good cheeseburger for free? That's a question with meat on it(unless you're in McDonald's, of course.)
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|