It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mankind is not ready for Liberty

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
In the case for Liberty and the achievement thereof, I contend that mankind must first accept that Man is neither ready for it nor able to readily receive it and keep it. What may seem as a conundrum; that which I resolve to sway the minds of many with my thoughts upon the subject is that which cannot be accepted.

In the purest sense, Liberty is protection from authority that wishes to exert said authority without the consent of the individual or society. In the broadest terms and that which many Americans feel is the crux of the Great Experiment in Self Governance; the ability to freely live ones life under an accepted moral good that harms no other in our pursuit of such Liberty.

It has fallen to pretenses and false contexts. Popular thought is that by sending military forces thousands of miles away to far off lands is protecting and preserving that Liberty; ensuring each citizen is equal not only under the law, but in the eyes of each other is progressing Liberty; and finally placing the feeling of being secure by constraining Liberty. All examples of how such pretenses and false contexts have infiltrated the minds of many into an honest belief they are true. And to each above, I will show how each fails to understand the true nature of Liberty and how each is used to ensure that humankind will never achieve the ability to fully embrace and relish in the radiance that is Liberty.

Concerning forward deployment of military forces to stem off perceived threats will secure the Liberties enjoyed at home not only should be an insult to those that profess a deep profound love of Liberty, but should also sicken the hearts of the many who believe it to be true. The thought process and illogic is as following: The United States of America protects its own Liberties by exerting authority upon another individual or society through military force and authority without the consent of said society or individual. This logic clearly contradicts the very basis of Liberty. We are using our Liberty to destroy what we perceive to be Tyranny and Despotic, without understand that Liberty cannot be forced. Yet Nations have used this convoluted pretense since recorded time. Liberty can only be spread by example, not through the use of force. It should also be noted that persons that protect their Liberty from invasion (be it foreign or domestic) are championing the very essence of Liberty.

In regards to another illogical vantage point of Liberty, that being not only under the law, but through the private dealings of individuals, we must all accept each other as equals. Such a notion flies in the face of Liberty. Again, the assertion of authority over an individual to act, think and behave in a certain manner that is contrary to the Natural existence of the human experience fails to promote and progress Liberty. Rather it limits Liberty and stifles the growth of humankind as a dynamic and robust species. While beliefs, experiences and learning can be shared, no two are identical. Each individual develops their own sphere of thought through learning, experiences, and reflection under a Liberty-centric society.

By now I make an assumption that some readers may be beginning to think that I am for anarchy or abolishment of Governments. This is not the message I am conveying if so. For Liberty to be enjoyed purely, mankind would have to accept a code of moral good that was universal and held by all. In doing so, all wants would have to be negated and only needs be supplied. This cannot be for we are individuals first and foremost and society last. One person’s needs are not the same as their neighbors. And with Liberty comes wants, for wanting cannot be controlled less we confine the free will of Men.

As a balance, a simple form of Government that abides and rules under Law is the only way in which Liberty can be progressed and felt freely upon mankind. The Constitution of the United States is an attempt to balance Liberty with Government. A society that freely consents to the rule of Law, as long as it is Just Law, can experience the greatest amount of Liberty without breaking down into a free for all where each person operates under their own moral good that they have defined for themselves.

I contend that Man, as shown throughout history, contracts itself back into allowing Liberty be cast aside for many reasons. Religion, security and safety are to name a few. When I speak of religion, it is organized religion that I refer to. The principle of Liberty accepts and promotes those who wish to worship a God, multiple Gods, or those that wish to not do so. When I speak of security, I speak not of being secure in our own persons and articles, but to that which we allow Liberty to be set aside in attempts to protect Liberty from known and unknown sources. Finally when I speak of safety, I refer to when society allows those that wish to stifle Liberty are allowed to create a monster to place us into fear that we feel unsafe within Liberty.

Throughout history, mankind has ascribed itself to be under the rule of Religion in attempts to become closer to God or become a morally good person. Religion is created by Man, yet many flock to this institution, which has maimed, murdered, raped, stole and plundered since its creation. The path to God, Creator or Self is not through such institution, but rather introspection and reflection into our own existence. Just as the path to Liberty is through the same path.

Given to the context of the times, security and safety are two pretenses that we, as a people, have accepted readily in exchange of Liberty. We feel secure because we send thousands of troops to fight for our Liberty while diminishing others. We feel safe because of the prior being fought thousands of miles away. We separate ourselves from the thought that we are not leading by example and instead forcing others to accept that which cannot be forced upon them; Liberty.

Those reasons above are shown to be reason why mankind is neither ready for nor able to accept Liberty. The failure to fully embrace Liberty makes it all too easy for ourselves to give it up in the face of danger or false manifestations of threats. Until Man has accepted that Liberty requires much more than the ability to do as one sees fit under the confines of moral good or rule of law; it will never be fully embraced or accepted. Liberty requires each person to accept it freely and without want. It requires the conduction of society to default towards Liberty whenever faced with a threat that is realized and imminent. It requires being shown throughout the World be example so that others may one day desire and seek out Liberty. It requires the utmost respect among each individual to understand that we all have the right towards Liberty. Most of all, it requires that Liberty to be protected.




edit on 29-12-2010 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   


It's easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. - Frederick Douglass



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I find your statement a little contradictory at times. Liberty was a cornerstone in the constitution, learnt by hard lessons from life during those times. Liberty was accepted and followed with a great nation rising. With this great power came great responsibility and I can see your sadness here. Greed and responsibility fought behind closed doors and greed has won. For the man on the street liberty is still a noble attribute, for our great organisations Liberty is still a lesson that needs to be learnt as money is not the only responsibility that comes with great power.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
We ARE ready for it, because by its very nature, it inspires.


"Love, and do as you will."
~ St. Augustine



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


And how about virtue also, where virtue may be defined (at least in part) as power, restrained.

They threw the whole thing out the window, the whole damn thing, without regard to the best interests of a Civil society..
"Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. ''Patriotism'' is its cult. It should hardly be necessary to say, that by ''patriotism'' I mean that attitude which puts the own nation above humanity, above the principles of truth and justice; not the loving interest in one's own nation, which is the concern with the nation's spiritual as much as with its material welfare --never with its power over other nations. Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one's country which is not part of one's love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship."
- Erich Fromm

Bush, Cheney and gang went ahead and sacrificed the virtue and honor of all the forefathers, all the way back to the origins of the United States.


George W. Bush, on Sacrifice..

"Today's struggle against terrorism will
require the sacrifice of our forefathers, but
it is a sacrifice I can promise you we'll make,"

the US president told residents of the small
town of Ste Mère Eglise, near Utah beach.

"It's a sacrifice for the good of America,
for the good of France, for the
good of freedom around the world."



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


That right there was why my dream was to become a child psychologist lol, a lot easier to help people when they are young, and their negative thought cycle is not so beat into their heads. Kind of hard though, when the government has parents by the balls, through the education system.



Originally posted by ownbestenemy
It has fallen to pretenses and false contexts. Popular thought is that by sending military forces thousands of miles away to far off lands is protecting and preserving that Liberty; ensuring each citizen is equal not only under the law, but in the eyes of each other is progressing Liberty; and finally placing the feeling of being secure by constraining Liberty. All examples of how such pretenses and false contexts have infiltrated the minds of many into an honest belief they are true. And to each above, I will show how each fails to understand the true nature of Liberty and how each is used to ensure that humankind will never achieve the ability to fully embrace and relish in the radiance that is Liberty.


Every single time we are abroad fighting for liberty, our liberties at home get spit on. We are told to spy on our neighbors, make sure they aren't commies. We shipped americans to concentration camps, just because they had asian blood. With the war on drugs we are told to spy on our neighbors, and report them if we think they might be using what a government deems the enemy. With the war on terrorism we are told to report any wierdos to walmart management.... Sounds like freedom to me :/



Originally posted by ownbestenemy
In regards to another illogical vantage point of Liberty, that being not only under the law, but through the private dealings of individuals, we must all accept each other as equals. Such a notion flies in the face of Liberty. Again, the assertion of authority over an individual to act, think and behave in a certain manner that is contrary to the Natural existence of the human experience fails to promote and progress Liberty. Rather it limits Liberty and stifles the growth of humankind as a dynamic and robust species. While beliefs, experiences and learning can be shared, no two are identical. Each individual develops their own sphere of thought through learning, experiences, and reflection under a Liberty-centric society.


Not sure what you are getting at here. care to elaborate on this? As it stands now, we are not all equal, under the law or otherwise. There is a a whole caste system, even in the united states. Poor people, who cannot afford to hire a law firm to defend them are likely to help populate the prison, wether guilty or not. Doesn't sound equal to me. Are you saying this is a good thing? The prison system is a for profit industry, just like war.


Originally posted by ownbestenemy
By now I make an assumption that some readers may be beginning to think that I am for anarchy or abolishment of Governments. This is not the message I am conveying if so. For Liberty to be enjoyed purely, mankind would have to accept a code of moral good that was universal and held by all. In doing so, all wants would have to be negated and only needs be supplied. This cannot be for we are individuals first and foremost and society last. One person’s needs are not the same as their neighbors. And with Liberty comes wants, for wanting cannot be controlled less we confine the free will of Men.


Common law, that is the best. Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't endanger or hurt anyone other than yourself. Seems reasonable to me.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 





George W. Bush, on Sacrifice.. "Today's struggle against terrorism will require the sacrifice of our forefathers, but it is a sacrifice I can promise you we'll make," the US president told residents of the small town of Ste Mère Eglise, near Utah beach. "It's a sacrifice for the good of America, for the good of France, for the good of freedom around the world."


Not sure what the 'W' sacrificed other than a career choice as a cheerleader or professional guzzler... Referring to alcohol of course.


Perhaps his handlers confused sacrifice in general.
edit on 30-12-2010 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I'll have an opening for you that's for certain. Keep at your dreams... Childhood education is the best chance at a turn-around. To reach adults (my age and older) you're forced to make numerous attempts not only from multiple angles, but in most cases bruising an ego so heavily it borders on bullying. Calls for some heated conversations. It also seems to laten real progress.


I guess our choices are to go easy, hard, or a combination of both.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


You are confining your understanding to the now and not the entirety of mankind. While individuals may comprehend the aspects of liberty, Man, as a whole, fails continually to achieve the status of true Liberty.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


While I understand your disdain for the lot of the the last administration, I was speaking clearly of none. My scope is that of mankind. I reference the United States, for it is what I know. This country has been without true leadership for decades.

Focus on the concept and debate the idea and leave the partisan politics for other threads, for this is not one that wishes to engage in such sophistry and mincing of ideals.

Liberty knows no party affiliation. It knows only a true moral good unto which mankind has not the capacity to obtain.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I respect the OP's premise as his freedom of expression, but I cannot agree with it as it smacks of FACISM at best and Tyranny at worse, messages that can only come from those that hold such values.

Mankind HAD been ready for liberty ever since the dawn of civilisation from the caves. With civilisation, we humans realize that freedom comes with a RESPONSIBLITY to others sharing our space.

While there will be disagreements, there will be laws and legal recourse for those affected. Within laws, which are made and accepted by society as a whole, we mankind will be able to achieve peace, equality, prosperity, justice and progress as mankind had for centuries, no matter our differences.

It is only when laws became WARPED to serve a minority few that tyranny sets in and liberty gone.

Do stop dishing out the blue pills. Taste nice but unpalatable to every human that seeks for true freedom where none gets left behind.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Every single time we are abroad fighting for liberty, our liberties at home get spit on. We are told to spy on our neighbors, make sure they aren't commies. We shipped americans to concentration camps, just because they had asian blood. With the war on drugs we are told to spy on our neighbors, and report them if we think they might be using what a government deems the enemy. With the war on terrorism we are told to report any wierdos to walmart management.... Sounds like freedom to me :/


I agree but do not mix Freedom with Liberty. One can have freedom yet still lack liberty. North Korea comes to mind. They are technically free, but lack liberty.



Not sure what you are getting at here. care to elaborate on this? As it stands now, we are not all equal, under the law or otherwise. There is a a whole caste system, even in the united states. Poor people, who cannot afford to hire a law firm to defend them are likely to help populate the prison, wether guilty or not. Doesn't sound equal to me. Are you saying this is a good thing? The prison system is a for profit industry, just like war.


Absolutely. I was speaking in the context not of the system we implore today in the United States but rather the bases of the system. That Just Law is blind. The fact that someone that has less cannot afford a high end lawyer to defend them is mute in that case. While the system here has been convoluted slightly, it still rests upon a foundation that is solid in understanding. Liberty in the confines of Government only survives if the people have consented and the laws that they adhere to are just in nature. So much of that has fallen wayside within the United States.

The Law itself sees no caste system. Only when the inclusion of Man does such a caste society ever arise. Objectively looking at a certain law, it should pertain to all people equally. A person not able to defend themselves (either by themselves or via a lawyer) does not negate the blindness of that law. It is only Man that clouds and blurs those lines.



Common law, that is the best. Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't endanger or hurt anyone other than yourself. Seems reasonable to me.


To this I agree again, but yet I must once more point out that once Man becomes engaged in the law, it no longer is pure.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:21 AM
link   
I think Mankind has always sought true freedom, hence Liberty
however it is not the majority that governs in liberated societies.
Elected officials govern the majority which opens the door to
greed and tyranny which is the exact opposite of liberty. A
paradox for sure...........it should be of the people, BY the people and for
the people. (all at the same time).

en.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia

Liberty

is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal responsibility and free will. The conception of liberty is impacted by ideals concerning the social contract as well as arguments that are concerned with the state of nature.

Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty relate to the freedom of the individual from outside compulsion or coercion and this is defined as negative liberty. Social liberal conceptions of liberty relate freedom to social structure and agency and this is defined as positive liberty. In feudal times, a liberty was an area of allodial land in which regalian rights had been waived.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
I respect the OP's premise as his freedom of expression, but I cannot agree with it as it smacks of FACISM at best and Tyranny at worse, messages that can only come from those that hold such values.


And I wholly respect your opinion upon the matter.

What may I ask then, is that of Fascism? In its definition, fascism seeks to place at the head of a Government a single authority in which dictates and exerts its power upon the masses politically and socially. It also seeks to allow favoritism upon businesses it sees fit to continue that rule.

I promote no such theory as it defies Liberty to the core. I explicitly gave my understanding of what Liberty is and even showed some small examples of how false pretenses and illogical contexts have been used in the name of Liberty.


Mankind HAD been ready for liberty ever since the dawn of civilisation from the caves. With civilisation, we humans realize that freedom comes with a RESPONSIBLITY to others sharing our space.


Individually, we all have the capacity and want of Liberty. It is ingrained upon us naturally. But as a whole, mankind has yet to turn the corner on achieving it. The wants of Man far outweigh the benefits of Liberty and history has proven so time and time again.


While there will be disagreements, there will be laws and legal recourse for those affected. Within laws, which are made and accepted by society as a whole, we mankind will be able to achieve peace, equality, prosperity, justice and progress as mankind had for centuries, no matter our differences.

It is only when laws became WARPED to serve a minority few that tyranny sets in and liberty gone.

Do stop dishing out the blue pills. Taste nice but unpalatable to every human that seeks for true freedom where none gets left behind.


Maybe you have misunderstood the whole of what I have presented.

Laws do not determine our prosperity nor dictate justice. Laws serve as a means of common ground amongst a group of individuals that have agreed upon a common moral good to serve as a basis of all society.

What is 'true freedom'? I spoke none of freedom, only Liberty. The two are not the same.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Liberty, despite the many school of thoughts on such issues, of negative and positive liberties, implies the same - freedom.

To be free is to be unbounded from all restrictions and constrains, fully synonomous with the defination of liberty. Liberty as a word thus had been used for centuries to mean - be free.

But what is it like to be free, totally unrestrained and unbounded from restrictions and any constrains, to do as you wish? Unfortunately, we alone do not own our world but live with others that equally sought to be free. One man's meat is another man's poison, and eventually our difference concepts of freedom will clash and kill each other.

Thus, many scholars throughout centuries had attempted to tacked responsibility to such liberty/freedom within societies, responsibilities that which we may each co-exists in peace while achieving our common aims.

But if it is pure liberty, that is without constrains that you seek, than it will be the Universe you seek. and you as the supreme being, to do as you wish.

We mortals would be happy with freedom or liberty that comes with responsibility to each other, or none of our species would have survived and would have died out at the stone age.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


And it is here we disagree.

Freedom derives solely from the individual and is a concept in which they have perceived or arrived at through their view upon the world. You are free to curse, smoke, do drugs, etc, but that freedom only exists within the scope of yourself.

Liberty is not confined such such. Liberty speaks specifically of protection from authority that has not been given consent to exert such authority over another.

You are at liberty to smoke and you have the freedom to do so. But my freedom that I have derived of living without smoke has been infringed, yet my liberty of being free of authority exerting its control over me has not.

You can legislate freedom and make laws for or against it. Liberty exists outside of those confines as any legislation that imposes upon a person without consent diminishes that persons Liberty that they hold.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


You can legislate freedom and make laws for or against it. Liberty exists outside of those confines as any legislation that imposes upon a person without consent diminishes that persons Liberty that they hold.



I am glad and hope that you had finally narrowed down to the 'Liberty' you would like to define as.

'Without consent' is the key word. If you think you are liberated, why even bother about consent? You are absolutely free to do anything without any consent in the first place, to live, to help, to kill, to be ruthless as you dictate to yourself.

You ONLY bother with consent because you will ultimately realize that you do not live alone or born out of a rock. You still seek consent, to do as you wish, so that others may not infringe upon your 'lilberty' or cause you pain or loss of that liberty.

Your defination of liberty is not that of human, but tyrants or tyranny to your equals. I mean no disrepect, but only as a discussion.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


I wish to have you expand how my definition of Liberty is akin to tyranny.

How I distinct the two is the same in which is laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Are you saying that those documents are a basis of a tyrannical rule?

It is Freedom of the Press, not Liberty of the Press. For Freedom implies that the State has no authority whatsoever in the first place to impose their rule upon it. Whereas if it were Liberty of the press, it becomes subject to the State as we have consented of their authority over it.

My argument lies with the fact that Man as a whole has not the capacity to enjoy Liberty for they always need to have a controlling mechanism above them. May it be religion, government or society. A society that has Liberty rooted in its foundation does not allow that Liberty to be easily taken away, for they have consented to a certain Law; Natural or Supernatural that is outside the sphere of influence of Man.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


After analyzing your latest post, there are 2 distinct issues that you may had been confused.

'1.) freedom of the press' vs 'Liberty of the press'.

By now, many would have realized that freedom comes with responsiblities, as passed down and taught by our ancestors for centuries, and that Liberty is synonomous with Freedom as we know it.

Despite the many beliefs of what Liberty means on a personal capacity, in its original form, it means no restrictions and constrains on a person to do as he wishes.

The press has the ability to reach out to the masses effectively and efficiently, as in the past and now. With 'Liberty' in its unadulterated form, it would mean reporters can simply do as they wish, to report the truth, or inflame the masses with lies and deceptions.

Fortunately by the time of the US founding fathers, liberty became freedom, freedom that comes with responsibilities. The freedom of press covered within human rights is that with such freedom, the press owes a responsiblity to the masses and through their elected officials, to ensure the truth is verified and reported.

However, when the elected officials are less than honest, and seek to curtail investigations and silence the press, then the press is free and at liberty to publish such details to the masses, for the responsibilty of freedom is to the masses and not to tyrants.

If is not for nothing that the preamble to the sacred Constitution begins with ' We, the People....."

2. Your version of Liberty is a personal one, with a personal view, and not one that had been agreed upon by our ancestors and forefathers, taught for generations, simply because we alone are not an island to ourselves, and shares space with others whom are free and equal like us, and does an obligation to consider others as well in our daily actions that we do not impose our will upon them dominatively or the knives will start to break out.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
By now, many would have realized that freedom comes with responsiblities, as passed down and taught by our ancestors for centuries, and that Liberty is synonomous with Freedom as we know it.
I agree with only because I believe that the definition of Liberty has become convoluted to meet the means of a lazy people. Just like many other words.


Despite the many beliefs of what Liberty means on a personal capacity, in its original form, it means no restrictions and constrains on a person to do as he wishes.


This is subjective and can only be supported through your personal views. Liberty implies that someone was granted or agreed towards. When I "take liberty" in something, I have either assumed consent or obtained consent or agreed to consent in order to perform that action in which I took liberty of doing or saying.

Other support of this would be other terms such as: "You are at liberty to speak". This implies that there was consent between two individuals [or more] for the action of speaking to engage upon. This differs greatly from the term "You are free to speak", which means that no one has agreed upon the given consent to allow anyone to speak. It is only that individual in which that freedom resides.


The press has the ability to reach out to the masses effectively and efficiently, as in the past and now. With 'Liberty' in its unadulterated form, it would mean reporters can simply do as they wish, to report the truth, or inflame the masses with lies and deceptions.

I agree with you it is the responsibility of the People to maintain their freedoms and their liberties. But the liberties we maintain are those in which we have freely consented to, or have given consent to, to enjoy. I am freely able to walk around, but there maybe a curfew in my town in which my liberty to walk around at late hours has been consented to freely.


Your version of Liberty is a personal one, with a personal view, and not one that had been agreed upon by our ancestors and forefathers, taught for generations, simply because we alone are not an island to ourselves, and shares space with others whom are free and equal like us, and does an obligation to consider others as well in our daily actions that we do not impose our will upon them dominatively or the knives will start to break out.


Just as much as your views upon mine are of your opinion and personal view.

I make the contention that because we lack the will to fight for freedom do we not have the capacity to maintain liberty nor seek it. It is here I can see why you would make a off-basis connection that I am suggesting tyranny, for without the freedom of the People, there cannot be any liberty. That liberty must be granted by the People.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join