Freedom or Tyranny

So with all of the labels being thrown around lately to marginalize people into categories, maybe it is time to simply the categories themselves. Labels such as Right versus Left, Republican versus Democrat, Conservative versus Liberal, Capitalist versus Communist and all of the different ISMs that fall into that realm, we should just simplify things instead. It all comes down to freedom versus Tyranny. It is Black and White with no grey areas.

Freedom means free will. With free will comes self-responsibility, self-accountability and self-determination. Tyranny is the opposite of that. Tyranny removes responsibility from the individual and based on which type of ‘ISM’ you prefer, transfers that responsibility/power to others. Tyranny is comfortable for the sheep. Sheep have different tolerance levels of control but they usually don’t revolt until their access to food and shelter is threatened.

The people that love freedom accept the responsibility that comes along with free will. They also realize that a certain amount of tyranny is needed when people come together to form a society. They recognize it is needed because of the sheep. I am willing to give up part of my freedom to tyranny because there are people out there that will just throw their trash out the window, into the street with no regard for their fellow man. But that type of tyranny should be relegated to the local level as much as possible. This is not a grey area. I fully realize that I am giving up a portion of my freedom. I evaluate every subject separately in this light.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We should build these tyranny structures as close to the community level as possible. Remove centralized government control. Give the power back to the states and the people. I concede that a centralized government is needed, but only for certain things. National defense, interstate commerce and congress regaining full control of our money system are a few of the responsibilities that could be delegated. But we need safeguards against this centralized power and the corruption it causes to the individual.

I agree that there is no left vs right in politics or government. They are mostly all on the same side and they are fully committed to expanding their power and control. Just because some politician has a ‘R’ or ‘D’ next to their name does not mean squat. It is all illusion to keep the masses happy. But that does not extrapolate to the common man. For the common man, this is a real struggle of freedom versus tyranny and not some game of greed/control/power. These ideals should also be separate between those snake oil salesmen that are in our government and the common peasant just trying to survive life, wanting to be left alone.

I know, I know … TLDR, but thank you for reading if you did.

I want peace of mind, stability and a cheese pizza. Oh and freedom too..

a reply to: ClovenSky

I want another beer .

Haven't you been reading the posts? You can't have freedom without tyranny.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Freedom means free will.

More than just free will, everyone can think anything they want.

Freedom and liberty combined, meaning you can move about and do what you want as long as your actions don't interfere with others individual rights .

To be free means much more than just having free will.

This has been twisted by the powers that be, your individual rights, freedoms and liberties are superseded by bureaucratic gubment regulations and the power of corporations to limit your freedoms to do most things you personally want to.

You're 'free' as long as you obey a litany of laws, regulations, signs, rules, ordnance's, policies, blah, blah.

By the way nothings free anymore. You ain't free either.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Tyranny is comfortable for the sheep. Sheep have different tolerance levels of control but they usually don’t revolt until their access to food and shelter is threatened.

Arguably, tyranny (as you call it) is impossible to escape, since the 'sheep' (as you call them/us) cannot revolt when they're focussed on making a living and just barely getting by. It is not about being comfortable, it's about diffusion of attention.

We should build these tyranny structures as close to the community level as possible.

The problem with tyranny, is that where power structures get built isn't up to us.

But we need safeguards against this centralized power and the corruption it causes to the individual.

I agree with you here, and the more decisions taken at a local level, the better.

a reply to: ClovenSky
It's not as simple as that, because there is a road to be found between two extremes.

The ditch on one side of the road is tyranny. The strong treat the weak any way they like, because nobody can stop them.

But what else do you think happens in a state of anarchy? Obviously anarchy means that the strong treat the weak any way they like because nobody can stop them. So anarchy is the ditch on the other side of the road.

So we need on the one hand to make sure that enough order is in place to frustrate the bullies who dominate anarchy. On the other hand, at the same time, we need to make sure that the bullies don't take over the agencies of order and introduce tyranny.
If you are so anxious to avoid the ditch on one side of the road that you turn the steering wheel just a little too far, you crash straight into the ditch on the other side of the road. That is why "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". We cannot be complacent that we're always moving in the right direction.

a reply to: ClovenSky
Well said! What you just reffered to is Natural Law (the law of moses. The law of freedom. Do you watch Mark passio by any chance? because he explains the exact same concepts as you did in the OP.
Here are some of his slides:









When taking personal responsibility, you become Sovereign.




The Natural Law as a Restraint Against Tyranny | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Judge Andrew explains this as well in the video below.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Couldn't agree more! I'd even stretch it... no more color, just human beings.

All these laws, rules, and regulations... all for things to look pretty or to fit the ideals of a particular group... it only breeds insanity.

It's a weird world when I must run off into the woods to escape the craziness people brew up... make myself a lawless pirate that won't even hurt an ant... and be viewed as the crazy one while doing so... all to remain free in spirit and mind. The more tyranny accepted into one's life is all but an added bit of acceptance into what is viewed as 'normal' by the masses. Each law adds a larger pool of normal. Each law created by one self adds an element of freedom, but attached craziness. Humans most often choose human nurturing as compared to isolation... with that comes a higher percentage of willingness to be normal.

I choose crazy... have since childhood. I make my own laws, and always will... a crime to me is something one does to another person. What I choose for myself, should be of no concern or opinion of those outside my living space. Being I live in a Country that fails to distinguish the imprisoned population from those who they are mad at vs. who they are scared of, I find my freedom to be lawless to be warranted. Like I said, I would not inflict harm on others by choice... but keep in mind that I can not speak or care for what my neighbors do outside my living space. I mention this because part of freedom and evading tyranny is to give all human beings the same exact respect and freedom of choice as we would for ourselves.

To provide balance to craziness and the masses, I agree that the more local laws are made, the more effective they will be. Those nesting in the environment best know what they feel needs governing. Don't think like me kids... unless you care not for human connection. Good read nonetheless.

originally posted by: jtma508
Haven't you been reading the posts? You can't have freedom without tyranny.

If I am in an environment by myself, I would have nothing but freedom. The only tyranny that would be imposed would be by reality itself through the arm of nature. If I respected the laws of nature and the laws of this reality, I would find nothing but freedom. Even then, if I went against nature, I would just need to accept the consequences. It would still be as close to freedom as one could get in this realm.

If everyone observed the laws of nature and reality, there would be no need for tyranny. Even in a large gathering of people, there would be no need for tyranny if people respected each other and their environment.

But in trying to control the sheep, the structures of tyranny have gone too far. Safe places, PCism, SJW, restrictions on free speech and other methods of control have taken this necessity of a group structure and perverted it. What you are witnessing now is a reversal of the rot. What is happening now is people are starting to fight back to regain their freedom and reduce tyranny back to the small structure is should be.

a reply to: intrptr

I admit, I am a lot less free than I would like to be. But I think that is starting to change. Those who take the necessity of LIMITED tyranny for society to function in today's age and perverted it for power/control may have taken their greed too far and awoken some of the sheep. This may just be the start of the so called awakened that are finally starting to realize what has happened and even better, what they have lost.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I just want to say that your post is absolutely brilliant.

I'm a middle-road kind of person, though apparently some think I'm a raging fascist commie for being on the liberal side of "middle." Then again, that sounds like bullying to me, so maybe I'm talking to people stuck in the ditch on the other side.

I'd offer to tow them out, but they keep throwing things at me.

a reply to: beansidhe

But with wanting to be free and recognizing the call of self responsibility you will always have a choice. Even if the choice is between servitude or death, it is still a choice. That choice is fully yours to make. Stating that because people are poor, they are powerless, is disingenuous. History proves how much power these 'poor' people have when they bond together under a common goal. The majority of people do not try to improve their surroundings, their society or even themselves when they are comfortable.

How much control we give others over ourselves is directly up to us. Remaining silent is the same thing as giving our controllers full reign in what they will do or giving them our consent. The way our government is currently operating is due to our complacency. If we as a people of these United States really got involved enough, we could dictate down to the last period on the contract, where these tyranny structures were built and how much control they had.

But the problem I don't know how to address is the people that don't want freedom. The people that willing give up massive amounts of their freedom to others because they do not want self-responsibility and self-accountability. History gives good examples of how these imbalances were resolved in the past, but there has to be a better way than a sea of red.

a reply to: DISRAELI

But that is the beauty of what our forefathers were trying to create, a republic and not a democracy. A nation of laws where the individual and their rights are protected against mob rule. Our second amendment rights was not for hunting. In those days everyone had a gun and if you didn't use it to hunt, you didn't eat. Our right to bear arms was their message to us that power corrupts and this right is for us to use against a tyrannical government. That right also protects us against our fellow peasant when they encroach on our personal sovereignty.

Again, if we were evolved enough and respected the rights of others, we wouldn't even need the basic and simple structures of tyranny that we do today.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Great thread you have going. I hope to join forces with your type of energy's when these turmoils come to a crossing point!

But the problem I don't know how to address is the people that don't want freedom. The people that willing give up massive amounts of their freedom to others because they do not want self-responsibility and self-accountability. History gives good examples of how these imbalances were resolved in the past, but there has to be a better way than a sea of red.

I often ponder this, and think a path of avoiding the sea of red and or blue is the balance. Once a 3rd party or more (5 should be the least amount of parties) is in play it forces the tyrannies of red/blue legacy driven campaigns to begin tracking on the new paths of more options. Yeah, people cheer for their home team athletes, but only the stats keep the athletes on the field playing. Once we remove affiliations, the freedoms of choice will expand naturally into the status quo that currently resides in place. Party system abolition is in need, to essentially force the masses hand at choosing more freedoms... without the concerns of what will come as a result.

This is of the opinions of someone looking at the affiliation cancers spreading so deep into our society.

a reply to: ttobban

Beautiful and thank you for the reply.

I agree. I also like to believe I am a pacifist and respect this reality and the life that inhabits this reality. If there is an ant or fly in my house, I will carefully pick it up and move it outside. I try to never kill. I try to be respectful to those around me and treat those who deserve it with kindness and respect. If they don't deserve those courtesies, then I simply ignore them.

If they invade my personal space / sovereignty then I will defend myself. I will even accept full karmic responsibilities for harming another in that type of situation.

a reply to: ClovenSky

But with wanting to be free and recognizing the call of self responsibility you will always have a choice. Even if the choice is between servitude or death, it is still a choice.

That is a choice, but choosing between servitude or death is not freedom. Choosing servitude is an illusion of freedom.

History proves how much power these 'poor' people have when they bond together under a common goal. The majority of people do not try to improve their surroundings, their society or even themselves when they are comfortable.

I agree that when they are comfortable, people do not rebel against the hand that feeds them - why would they? It would be imperative to maintain the status quo and keep the standard of living that they are growing accustomed to. Arguably, most people do try to improve their surroundings when they are comfortable - bigger houses, gardens etc.
Poor, disenfranchised people have phenomenal power when they group together, enough to topple regimes but my point was that when people are barely getting by, it's hard to focus that power unless there is a major catalyst and people feel that there is nothing left to lose.

How much control we give others over ourselves is directly up to us. Remaining silent is the same thing as giving our controllers full reign in what they will do or giving them our consent. The way our government is currently operating is due to our complacency. If we as a people of these United States really got involved enough, we could dictate down to the last period on the contract, where these tyranny structures were built and how much control they had.

As a non-American I can't really comment, but it does seem that way from here. In other words, I know what you mean and the understand the point you are making.

History gives good examples of how these imbalances were resolved in the past, but there has to be a better way than a sea of red.

I know and agree here with you too. Local government is a good step towards more autonomy and accountability, but I don't have any answers for you, I'm sad to say.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

It will take some time to review all of that material. Thank you for posting it. I may have read Mark Passio but I don't remember him directly.

I don't think that anything I have posted is unique or original. The information may be presented or put together in a different way, but I would say that these words have been spoken many times in many different forms throughout the ages. I allow my ego to rationalize this as me trying to understand this reality and the rules it imposes. I also allow my ego the chance that I am on the right path.

I think a lot of the archetypes of history survived the ages because they adhere to reality. They seem to strike a chord of 'rightness' in people when they discover them.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I understand that people are different. It is one of the things that makes this life, this reality worth experiencing. If we were all the same, this world would be fricken boring.

But maybe we could create 50 different states with different ways of governance. The states would still have to obey the bill of rights and the constitution that protects the individual against mob rule, even when that tyranny is in the hands of the city or state. But within those confines, different societies could be created. There would need to be a respect between states in the respect to pollution and possible other types of encroachment. But then an individual would have freedom. The freedom of choice. If you don't like your current environment then move to a state that shares your ideals. If you have family or other reasons not to move, then just like the choice between freedom and tyranny, you would have to accept the consequences of your decision.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Too funny... it seems like general outlooks on life is what governs our acceptance of tyrannies. I am 10 years into a mortgage in a HOA community, so I tested the waters of legislation in times past like we all do in life. Now, I gladly accept a $20 a month fine because I prefer not to put chemicals on my lawn, nor mow it to HOA standards... I prefer the all natural look freedom of choice now. I am at the point now, where I just let the insects in the house be... only waging war on those that pick a fight 1st... my dog is quite the enthusiast of acting as exterminator.

These debates prevail when karmic attachments are equated into decision making. The absence of karmic attachments is why I feel people accept more tyrannies into their life. This is a dis-attachment to the oneness that is the human race essentially. I feel safer in the wrongness of freedom then I do into the restraints of tyranny... and that is solely driven by my beliefs that my actions of energy affect any and all energies around me, whether I may want to admit ot or not. I get the sense we agree and see it this way because of these karmic aspects being reflected upon by our thoughts. Take that element away, and the divide immediately sets forth.