Slavery or free from the chains of freedom?

Freedom is good.
Freedom is a way of life.
Freedom is the power or right to do as one wants.

However, we often seem to forget that, freedom is very subjective.
Freedom is a state of mind.


Is it better to be a slaves to ones basic needs or is it better to have the freedom of pursuing more than basic needs? As we PAY with money, we also SPEND our time.
Who is richer between the self made man with no time outside his survival and the man of society with time to go beyond his survival?

Are the ones chosen by democracy, rulers or are they representatives of the people?
A free man can't have a ruler yet must be represented when he is not there to protect his freedoms.

One can think that when the government passes laws it is against freedom yet, one must acknowledge that the government can instate laws to let people keep their freedom.

The fear of order is deeply ingrained in anarchist, yet the fear of chaos is just as great in the mind of the orderly.

Are freedom fighters fighting for the freedom of all or are they just terrorists?

One might feel that to live within the values of a government is slavery while others believe that those values are optimal for co-existence.

How can one believe that government is slavery, if that same government is the most adapted authority that can illegalize slavery? Slavery seems to be inevitable one way or the other.

Pitt-Rivers said:

“Honour is the value of a person in his own eyes, but also in the eyes of his society. It is his estimation of his own worth, his claim to pride, but it is also the acknowledgment of that claim, his excellence recognized by society, his right to pride.”

Still, some might feel that personal responsibility is the highest honor while others feel that true honor is in fact social responsibility.

One would rightousely say that we must hold the freedom of protecting oneselves, yet the need is gone when we have the freedom of living without fear of being assaulted.

Many will ask for the right of living without government, however by following their values, they could not withhold the right of one to construct a government as there is no freedom without the freedom of choice.

Is it even possible for anarchy to be perpetuated if there is no organized order denying the formation of a government?
Is it possible for order to be perpetuated if there is no organized order defending the continuation of a government?

Some believe that the individual must suffer for his goals but will not suffer for the goals of society.
Others believe that society must suffer for it's goals in the aspiration to the idea of no individuals suffering.

Some see social progress as negative because they don't want others to suffer less than they did to get the same thing.
Some, however, see social progress as positive because they don't want their offspring to suffer as much to get the same thing.

Benjamin Franklin said:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This quote, or plagirizations of it, are often used by anarchists and other people that consider freedom more important than safety.

Although, notice the word TEMPORARY in Franklin's quote. So, giving up some liberties to gain CONSTANT securities can be beneficial, especially if those liberties aren't essential.
Just like the whole of life itself, there is a middle ground that's optimal. Perhaps the path to true freedom does not reside on any extremes.

Maybe freedom is the whole point of life, something that seem possible yet never attainable thus giving us the desire to eternally thrive.
Maybe the desire of freedom is actually enslaving a man within himself as he is asking to be free from the chains of freedom.

So people of ATS...can a human being really be free? Is this impossible goal the drive of us aspiring for more?
Is the eternal search for freedom the reason for the eternity itself?
Once man would truly find freedom, would he eventually die of boredom?

Basically freedom is the right to make ones own way, to be independent of burdensome government bureaucracy and meddlesome laws, taxes, restrictions and permits. Independent instead of dependent on the system of state.
I want to make my own living, not a living. I want to be free to stake my claim to a spit of land, occupy it and form it to my liking.

Ones right to do that ends where anothers begins.

originally posted by: intrptr
Ones right to do that ends where anothers begins.

I feel that it's why we need laws, restrictions and permits.

The individual is not more dependent from the state than the state is dependent to it's individuals.

a reply to: theMediator

I feel that it's why we need laws, restrictions and permits.

Those are the shackles placed on individual freedom. As long as I'm not hurting anyone or infringing on the same liberties my neighbors have, the gubment has no right to tell me what to do.

They infringe upon personal liberty and freedom all day, all the way from Washington.

But thanks for the expansive, official, "policy" view.

I think we can have various degrees of freedom, never absolute freedom. We are bound to societies, countries, physical laws, to our own habits and feelings.

Once man would truly find freedom, would he eventually die of boredom?

He will be enlightened

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: theMediator

I feel that it's why we need laws, restrictions and permits.

Those are the shackles placed on individual freedom. As long as I'm not hurting anyone or infringing on the same liberties my neighbors have, the gubment has no right to tell me what to do.

And if your neighbours would be infringing your liberties, who would tell them what to do? You could try yourself...but what if they refuse? What if they have much bigger "weapons" than you?

originally posted by: intrptr
They infringe upon personal liberty and freedom all day, all the way from Washington.

Not in a situation where they would have instated a law to protect your freedom from those disrespectful neighbours.

a reply to: theMediator

Freedom is always limited necessarily by the law.

Without the law the man with the biggest army is the only one truly free. As the one with the largest army maintains the right to choose who lives or dies.

Without laws to prevent such ideologies from arising the only free man will be the psychopath who rules the Necromongers. Whose only rule of law is you keep what you kill.

All will live in fear of the only free man.

Watch the Chronicles of Riddick and you will have a good idea of a true anarchist state with no laws to protect civil liberties.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I totally agree with what you said.

It seems to me that someone advocating for anarchy would want to cop out of it when withnessing it's faults and realizing that their views on "true freedom" wouldn't help them thrive.

Probably that the people advocating for communism would also feel the same way.

If you define Freedom by desire, then Freedom is subjective since each being has their own desires.

To me, Freedom is Compassion. If there is no respect for each others' Life and Property, then there will be no Freedom, just domination of one group controlling the others.