Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What is Freedom?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Seems the people who cry the word 'freedom' the most are the ones who understand it the least.

People think freedom is being allowed to burn your coal fire anytime you want, or being able to say anything want without repercussions, and other ridiculous notions.

It's no different to a prisoner who may enjoy more "freedoms" within the prison than other prisoners because of their status. They are still in prison, they are not free.

Real freedom in society comes from control over the form of providing for yourself. A person who works for an hourly wage has little control over their lives. Their whole life revolves around their "job". Someone who owns a business has the most control over their form of income, and the income of their workers.

It's not governments/state that is the barrier to your freedom, it's the economic system. Money has more power than presidents. The private owner is above the president. The 'shadow government' is capitalist interests. It's whoever has the most economic power to influence government/state for their benefit. I believe the oil industry is the top dog right now, and has been for a long time. It's why we had Bush and Cheney. And guess what Romney's company is involved in? Did you say oil?


Bain’s Oil & Gas practice serves all areas of the industry: We advise government and national oil companies, major and independent commercial oil companies, petrochemical producers, renewable energy companies, oil field service firms, private equity investors and sovereign wealth funds.


Bain and Company


That's what BP's CEO Tony Hayward did. In 2008, he hired Bain Capital to say the company would be better managed if it spent less money. Bain used consulting BS terms like reducing "complexity," but it all meant the same thing: cut, cut, cut.


How Bain Capital helped BP blow up the Deepwater Horizon

True freedom can only come from the common ownership of the means to produce, especially land. The freedom to live off the land it what capitalism initially took away when the 'Inclosure laws' started to be enacted in England starting in the 1750's. It wasn't immediate, but by the 1860's it was complete and all land was inclosed (enclosed).


The Inclosure or Enclosure Acts were a series of United Kingdom Acts of Parliament which enclosed open fields and common land in the country. They removed previously existing rights of local people to carry out activities in these areas, such as cultivation, cutting hay, grazing animals or using other resources such as small timber, fish, and turf. "Inclosure" is an old or formal spelling of the word now more usually spelled "enclosure": both spellings are pronounced pron.: /ɨŋˈkloʊʒər/.


Inclosure Acts

The result of this was the 'commoners' had no choice but to take "jobs" in the mills and factories of the land owners. This is how the economy based on 'surplus value', capitalism, started. The workers had to produce more than they were paid for, in order for the land owner (private owner/capitalist) to make profit. The extra that is produced is 'surplus value' and what the capitalist takes as their profit.

It had nothing to do with 'free-markets', or freedom at all. It was a planned and controlled method for the land owners to exploit the 'commoners' for their financial benefit.

The system was not called 'capitalism' until it was coined by a French Socialist, Lious Blanc, in 1840.


The term “capitalism” was introduced by anti-capitalists but not by Marx. Its most notable early appearance is in Louis Blanc’s Organisation du Travail (1840), published while Marx was still a grad student in Berlin.


archive.mises.org...

Towards the end of feudalism the 'commoners' were forming a peaceful cooperative society, far different than what it became after the change to the capitalist economy. With capitalism came the class system, property crime, poverty, war etc.


"With its virile affirmation of the individual, and which succeeded in creating a society through the free federation of men, of villages and of towns. "In those cities, sheltered by their conquered liberties, inspired by the spirit of free agreement and of free initiative, a whole new civilization grew up and flourished in a way unparalleled to this day."133 The free cities were virtually independent; although the crown "granted" them a charter in theory, in reality the charter was typically presented to the king and to the bishop of the surrounding diocese as a fait accompli, when "the inhabitants of a particular borough felt themselves to be sufficiently protected by their walls...." Peter Kropotkin, 1842-1921


www.mutualist.org...

Capitalism was not a naturally formed free-market, it was imposed on us from the land owning 'ruling classes'. That is not freedom for anyone but the upper capitalist class (not so much small business owners).

edit on 1/1/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
It's not governments/state that is the barrier to your freedom, it's the economic system.

Lets not forget WHO exactly is behind that "economic" system...

Bottom line we are dealing with generational satanic families who control this world going back 1,000's of yrs, of their goal to depopulate the world.


One group and one group alone is responsible for virtually all wars and bloodshed on the face of this planet. This evil cabal is few in numbers but, like a deadly octopus, its tentacles reach out to grip and strangle untold multitudes of innocent victims. The initiates of every secret society and internationalist organization, from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Jesuits to the Bilderbergers and the Order of Skull & Bones, obey the dictates of this sinister group and tremble when standing before its leaders.

The cabalist group I refer to is the Synagogue of Satan, an ancient, yet modern, elite so politically powerful and so fabulously wealthy that even past history has been twisted, reshaped, and revised to meet its preferred version of humanity's gloomy, totalitarian future.

The Synagogue of Satan



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Hi op

Does state capitalism come into play?

Or, are we really socialists pretendind to be the above..or vice versa

Makes no difference now the class is certainly being divided.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I agree the feudal system is still firmly in place. The Barons of Industry is not a catch phrase. I doubt the goal is depopulation, who would serve? All rulers must have vassals.

I have been noticing this more and more as the merchant class is strangled out.

Those in control do not seem to keep in mind how these systems end....hears the beat of distant drums.....

edit on 1-1-2013 by Iamschist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Freedom and time are quite similar. Its just an illusion.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
as I've been reading the last few days, this struck me, first:
free dumb

but that maybe the problem with idiots like me knowing how to read to begin with.....LOL
edit on 1-1-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Get rid of capitalism and you still have a system that oppresses freedom unless its total anarchy...and YES freedom does mean you get to say whatever the hell you want as verbal audible sounds interfere with others freedoms little to not...

Once you interfere with the freedoms of others you open the door for others to interfere with your freedoms...this is absolutely rampant in almost every social dynamic that exists...

I can't identify if it is human nature to oppress or if its a learned behavior...

I know that in my case the desire for freedom is a natural desire that I believe I was born with. I loathe oppression and despise people who think they have any say so over another human beings life...outside of raising children. Obviously I have a problem with Authority...because I refuse to acknowledge it...

I consider us all equally incompetent and should only suffer our OWN incompetence instead of the incompetence of others made under the guise of "authority" type concepts.

In that same regard I consider us all equally competent and should only benefit from our OWN competence instead of the collective forced charity by the above authority.

In either case having your own life in your own hands is what freedom to me...is all about.

TAXES are the progenitor of oppression...everything else is just an exacerbation of that.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesmart
Does state capitalism come into play?


Yes I refer to all forms of capitalism, the problem being the private ownership of the means to produce, whether that be by individuals or state representatives.


Or, are we really socialists pretendind to be the above..or vice versa


Socialism being the workers common ownership of the means of production then no. If by 'we' you mean the US then you have a very liberal capitalist economy, with what pretends to be a representative republic government. Remember those who have the economic power really run the show.


edit on 1/1/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
Get rid of capitalism and you still have a system that oppresses freedom unless its total anarchy...and YES freedom does mean you get to say whatever the hell you want as verbal audible sounds interfere with others freedoms little to not...


But the state we have is the result of capitalism. Change the economic system, so that no minority group can become far more economically powerful than the majority, then the state can no longer be oppressive.

Economic power is where oppression comes from. Without economic disparity it's hard to oppress anyone.


Once you interfere with the freedoms of others you open the door for others to interfere with your freedoms...this is absolutely rampant in almost every social dynamic that exists...


I agree and that is what capitalism does. It gives people who have the economic power to interfere in others freedom. The most basic example is work itself, please refer to my OP to understand why.


I can't identify if it is human nature to oppress or if its a learned behavior...


Well if it's either we shouldn't be applauding a system that allows oppression.


I know that in my case the desire for freedom is a natural desire that I believe I was born with. I loathe oppression and despise people who think they have any say so over another human beings life...outside of raising children. Obviously I have a problem with Authority...because I refuse to acknowledge it...


But your desires don't tell you what freedom is, that you are taught, unless you teach yourself.


I consider us all equally incompetent and should only suffer our OWN incompetence instead of the incompetence of others made under the guise of "authority" type concepts.

In that same regard I consider us all equally competent and should only benefit from our OWN competence instead of the collective forced charity by the above authority.

In either case having your own life in your own hands is what freedom to me...is all about.


I agree, worker ownership is not an authoritarian system, quite the opposite and the whole point really.


TAXES are the progenitor of oppression...everything else is just an exacerbation of that.


I agree, but do you realise the 'surplus value', the amount the private owner rips you off for when you work, is far more than the taxes you pay? The real thief of your income is your employer, not the government.


Classism is the systematic oppression of subordinated groups (people without endowed or acquired economic power, social influence, and privilege) who work for wages for the dominant group (those who have access to control of the necessary resources by which other people make their living).


www.odec.umd.edu...

edit on 1/1/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Majority/Mob rule democracy is still oppression and all minorities know this too well. This is why there has been an over-correction to minority power now...

The old justification for majority rule concept was that fewer total people were oppressed. This was acceptable upon conception because the minority didn't have the power in a majority-rule system to oppose their subjugation they were of little to no concern...casualties of war so to speak...the acceptable collateral damage of the majority rule.

I'm not arguing that economics is force of oppression as I agree completely that the nature of currency is oppressive

Money that can be printed out of thin air...fiat currency...is immune to accountability...and therefor those who have access to the money tree make all the rules...for everyone else but themselves of course.

Where I'm hung up is that I don't see a form of governance/economy in the modern world that won't oppress ANYONE...its basically just a Haagen Dazs flavor of the week of oppression...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

is the closest I can think of to a type of society that isn't rampant with oppression. Its not a utopia but its my dream world in a sense.
edit on 1-1-2013 by Sly1one because: horrible run on sentence
edit on 1-1-2013 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one
Where I'm hung up is that I don't see a form of governance/economy in the modern world that won't oppress ANYONE...its basically just a Haagen Dazs flavor of the week of oppression...


I don't think it has to be a utopia. Utopian socialism died in the early 1800's and was replaced by scientific socialism.


Utopian socialism, properly so-called, is the name given to socialist aspiration in the era prior to the development of industrial capitalism. It refers to the yearning for an egalitarian society, but without the scientific analysis of social evolution that modern scientific socialism provides.


Utopian socialism

It's really a simple idea. If the means to produce are owned in common, then no one can monopolize the means to produce and use it to exploit. Also if everyone is getting what they need they will not so easily fall for the lies of authoritarians.

Oppressive governments are funded by capitalism. Capitalism is the only way a minority class can become the ruling class. It's the only way governments can afford weaponry, and to go to war.




posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Merriam-Webster ONLINE Dictionary defines FREEDOM as

1 : the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous
d : ease, facility
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use
2
a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege

From dictionary.reference.com

Word Origin & History: free - O.E. freo "free, exempt from, not in bondage"


And LIBERTY as

1 : the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
2
a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege
b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3 : an action going beyond normal limits: as
a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity
b : risk, chance
c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice
d : a distortion of fact
4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours
— at liberty
1 : free
2 : at leisure : unoccupied


Liberty from the World English Dictionary:

1. the power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from
control or restriction
2. the right or privilege of access to a particular place; freedom
3. ( often plural ) a social action regarded as being familiar, forward,
or improper
4. ( often plural ) an action that is unauthorized or unwarranted in the
circumstances: he took liberties with the translation
5. a. authorized leave granted to a sailor
b. ( as modifier ): liberty man ; liberty boat
6. at liberty free, unoccupied, or unrestricted
7. take liberties to be overfamiliar or overpresumptuous (with)
8. take the liberty to venture or presume (to do something)



My 1967 Websters Seventh New Colligiate Dictionary gives
these definitions

Freedom:
1 : the quality or state of being free: as
a: the absence of necessity, coersion, or restraint in choice
or action
b: liberation from slavery or restraint of the power of
another : INDEPENDENCE
c: EXEMPTION : RELEASE
d: EASE, FACILITY
e: FRANKNESS, OUTSPOKENNESS
f: improper familiarity
g: boldness of conception or execution
h: unrestricted use
2 :
a: a political right
b: FRANCHISE, PRIVILEGE


Liberty:
1 : the quality or state of being free
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or depotic control
d: the positive enjoyment of social, political,
or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice
2 :
a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or
by grant: PRIVILEGE
b: permission esp. to go freely within specified limits
3 : an action going beyond normal limits as:
a: a breach of etiquette or propriety : FAMILIARITY
b: RISK, CHANCE
c: a violation of rules or standard practice
d: a distortion of fact
4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usu.
for less than 48 hours

So, what's the big deal, you ask. The difference is
subtle.

Freedom is granted by an authority; Liberty is meaning
to take as a natural right, ie, the authority lies within
oneself.


For example: Travel

Do you have a right to travel or do you need permission do do so?

"Freedom" to travel implies that some authority granted you the "right" via license
to do so. "Liberty" implies that you could do so without "grant" from any authority.
edit on 1/1/13 by fever because: practical example, spelling error



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by fever
 


Hmmm who wrote the dictionary?

I don't care what the dictionary says, only what history shows to be true.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So the meanings of words hold no meaning?

As for where the source of the dictionary meanings, they were in the post:

www.merriam-webster.com...

dictionary.reference.com...

And my physical "Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary" 1967

If you botherd to read my post.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by fever
 


Hmmm who wrote the dictionary?

I don't care what the dictionary says, only what history shows to be true.


Apparently, you don't know and don't care about the difference between FREEDOM and LIBERTY.

And this by you: "I don't care what the dictionary says, only what history shows to be true." is idiocracy.

I'm out of this insanity.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmm who wrote the dictionary?

Hmmm who wrote HISTORY?


“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”


“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac


"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK


"Throughout recorded history, the Illuminati has successfully withheld from humankind major aspects of history and science in order to subjugate the masses"

By manipulating the souls evolving on earth, the Illuminati have deliberately suppressed the spiritual facts of life, not to mention liberating technologies, which could bring plenitude to all.

Secrets of Suppressed Science and History


The Illuminati realized they had to deceive an entire population of people if they had any hope whatsoever of achieving their coveted New World Order. As early as 1911, the Illuminati began buying textbook writing companies, until they owned them all after World War I. Once they got control of textbooks, they gradually began to "dumb down" the curricula and rewrite history. Rewriting history was the first step in achieving the New World Order. Source



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Hmmm who wrote HISTORY?


Well the whole reason I post stuff like this is because this is not the history people are taught. I am trying to show the real history, and how it is has been twisted to fool people into supporting something not in their best interest.

This is the real history, not that written by the victors, who would be in this case capitalists and their supporters.
They are the ones that have told you communism is what happened in the USSR, that capitalism is a natural free-market and freedom.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by fever
So the meanings of words hold no meaning?


Of course they do, but you have to find the true meaning of words by going to the route, not what the dictionary says. This may be shocking but when it comes to politics the dictionary cannot be trusted.

Some dictionaries, not all, claim capitalism is free-market when obviously it isn't.

The dictionary doesn't say socialism is worker ownership, but research the history of the term and the socialist movement it becomes obvious that's what it is.

I didn't ask for a source btw.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

... you have to find the true meaning of words by going to the route, not what the dictionary says. This may be shocking but when it comes to politics the dictionary cannot be trusted.

Some dictionaries, not all, claim capitalism is free-market when obviously it isn't.

The dictionary doesn't say socialism is worker ownership, but research the history of the term and the socialist movement it becomes obvious that's what it is.

I didn't ask for a source btw.


... and who decides what the true meaning is - for You?

I agree btw that history is not what we are taught in school. But can you put the blame on capitalists?

To answer your question, what is Freedom? - that is easy: Choice. Obviously, that implies REAL choice, not that between different members of a cartel. Monopoly is the enemy, and yes, capitalists love to from cartels where their profits are all but guaranteed. But who enables that cartel/monopoly? it is the government - which is a monopoly in itself.

If there was no such thing as Federal law in the US, the States would regulate commerce and at least some would do a better job at it than others, and the less good ones would be avoided and experience a drop in tax revenue.

The individual would have no reason to "Occupy" because he would have 1) better power to participate in a closer State government (than one that is time zones away), and 2) could exercise his Choice to go to a better State.

Any viable political system must allow for individual ownership - or else there will be no motivation for productivity. Ownership means Capitalism. Socialism is removing individuals' choices and rights (which includes ownership).



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
... and who decides what the true meaning is - for You?


From the original use of the term, from the mouths of those who coined the terms. The dictionary doesn't create words and their meanings, it just defines them, and not always correctly (sometime for political reasons).

The right wing capitalist establishment through history has appropriated left wing terms in order to confuse their true meanings. The term capitalism itself was coined by socialists, yet capitalists claim to define the term? What right do they have to do that?


I agree btw that history is not what we are taught in school. But can you put the blame on capitalists


I blame the system not people. The system of capitalism has shaped the society we have today. You only have to research the history of the end of feudalism, starting in England, up to the present, to see how capitalism changed the way we live.

The biggest change came after WWII. Pre WWII the workers were very militant and socialist, we got the revolution in Spain supported the world over for example. WWII decimated the working class and destroyed the solidarity. Post WWII the state pushed people to become social climbers, 'keeping up with the Jones's', and the collective power of the working class severely diminished.

This was done for capitalist interests, to keep the threat of worker rebellion down. Same reason we got the liberal welfare state. Socialists didn't want liberalism, the capitalist class did because it takes the pressure off them.


To answer your question, what is Freedom? - that is easy: Choice. Obviously, that implies REAL choice, not that between different members of a cartel. Monopoly is the enemy, and yes, capitalists love to from cartels where their profits are all but guaranteed. But who enables that cartel/monopoly? it is the government - which is a monopoly in itself.


It was really a rhetorical question. Freedom can only come when we have to answer to no one in order to provide for our needs. The fact we have to work for a private owner means we are not free.


If there was no such thing as Federal law in the US, the States would regulate commerce and at least some would do a better job at it than others, and the less good ones would be avoided and experience a drop in tax revenue.


If we still had a capitalist economy. In a socialist economy it wouldn't matter, because it is a needs based not a profit based system.


The individual would have no reason to "Occupy" because he would have 1) better power to participate in a closer State government (than one that is time zones away), and 2) could exercise his Choice to go to a better State.


Not sure what you mean by "occupy?" Occupy what?


Any viable political system must allow for individual ownership - or else there will be no motivation for productivity. Ownership means Capitalism. Socialism is removing individuals' choices and rights (which includes ownership).


Our motivation for production comes from need. It doesn't take individual ownership to motivate people to produce what they need. But having said that socialism can be individual ownership, there are no rules as to how it should be organised, that would be up to the individual communities to decide based on their needs and wants.

Having said that though individual ownership is not practical. It's hard to produce anything major by yourself.

edit on 1/4/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join