Don't we fight for freedom anymore?

[butchersapron]

What?? Are you yet again trying to label me? I must be very confusing for you since you cannot pigeon-hole me conveniently!

Why don' you state for the record that you believe in freedom and rights for everyone including workers rights?

Go on!! Surprise me by stating an opinion

If you mean that that you don't know what you believe then i believe you (Ayn rand vs i hate all this badnessvs whatever oddness it is this week).

Your utter freakishness on the morality thread (where you manage to convince youself that an ideal type or bloodless abstraction is actually reality) has convinced me that you don't have a clue.

Your last bizzare line passeth my understanding.

 

[butchersapron]

I generally agree with that, but I'd qualify it in a couple of respects. First, until a century or two ago the means of enforcing laws were pretty sketchy, so although there might have been a lot of very restrictive laws at various times, a lot of them may well not have been observed very much. Second, I tend to agree we're as free now 'to choose our own path' as at any time in recorded history, but we're also a lot more regulated in little ways than a century or so ago. The state became a lot stronger and its influence more pervasive in the nineteenth century, and then in the twentieth the demands of total war and the welfare state created a much larger and more intrusive bureaucracy. The government has the means of collecting a lot more information on us than ever before, and micromanages us in ways that would have been impossible even thirty or forty years ago. So although we're almost as free to act as we want, we're more controlled in many ways than in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. IMVHO.

The whole history of the states development has been the enclosure of and then specialisation of social functions - it takes them over and it makes them commodities or it makes them aspect of control rathe than being aspects of popular life . Where Matthews is wrong is in imagining the enclosed right as individual, when it was always bound up with and developed out of collective nature of rights. And it's where he goes wrong when he demands the right to do what he wants. he can't see the collective nature of our rights.

 

[CJohn]

....I think Zizek put it something like "we lack the language to articulate our unfreedom", which I thought was a fairly succinct way of expressing it.

 

[Gmart]

And it's where he goes wrong when he demands the right to do what he wants. he can't see the collective nature of our rights.

Always getting the wrong end of the stick botcher! I recognise that my freedom imposes on other people but unlike you I recognise that there must be a balance between my respect for them and their respect for my freedom too.

Like Fruitloop said:

Authoritarian politicians are happy to take advantage of that opportunity to roll back freedoms that have been hard-won in the course of the last couple of centuries.

Meanwhile your lack of comment, as usual, merely allows this to happen.

Do you even accept the label of Anarchist, Botcher?

 

[fela fan]

Always getting the wrong end of the stick botcher! I recognise that my freedom imposes on other people but unlike you I recognise that there must be a balance between my respect for them and their respect for my freedom too.

Actually your freedom really need not impose on mine. Freedom comes with responsibility, and in fact those people who don't accept their responsibilities in life have not attained freedom.

Freedom is a two-way street: i have freedom because i don't allow others to impinge on my living, and i myself don't impinge on others. If i do, then i have lost my own freedom.

I think you have well recognised a rather depressing movement in britain where the population, for whatever reason, are allowing many of their freedoms to be eroded by the state. Their predecessors fought bloody hard to get them, now we seem to be throwing them away.

It won't be a surprise if posters come along and tell me i can't know coz i no longer live in my country. But plenty of people in britain are saying very similar to your opening post mate.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Don't we fight for freedom anymore?

I would far rather have less laws, with freedom than more laws without. Sure a few more prisoners get caught but we never get more tan a certain percentage, and at what cost?

That's "fewer" laws, teacher.

I appreciate that the media makes out that it's sh*t out there but why do we fall for that?

Speak for yourself. Many don't "fall for that".

When did we stop fighting for freedom from oppression? And start arguing for more and more laws?
Has fear of the unknown really won? Fear is supposed to be an alarm, not a way of life...

Do we not believe in the people around us?

Do we not believe in ourselves?

We are good people in general. I meet all sorts and we are usually friendly, jovial, helpful, kind people.

If we are not fighting for freedom, liberty, equality and rights then what kind of world are we trying to create? What ARE we fighting for? Or are we fighting?

Not everyone is nice, I hear too much racist bullsh*t, and many people seem to take pleasure in other people's misfortune, often because they cannot envisage another point of view.

The freedom to have another point of view, and to be respected in that view, even from a position of disagreement, is a worthy freedom to have and I'm sad to see such freedom trampled on so easily.

You're not actually talking about "freedom as concept", but rather about "freedom to do things" and "freedom from things", then, and using a vaguely communal concept of "we" to give reinforcement to your own "take" on the subject.

IMO the inescapable fact is that in any community that utilises the form of politics that we have in the UK, we have those freedoms to do things and those freedoms from things only insofar as we are able to convince our politicians of the necessity of having them; in other words we surrender some "freedoms" to secure others, and given that the nature of power-elites is to centralise and concentrate power this has historically meant the neutralisation or abrogation of those secured "freedoms" through the manipulation of opinion and via the poorly representative nature of our "democratic" politics. The only route for change within the current system would be a shift to a form of proportional representation, where elected members would have to be much more "in tune" with the needs and wants of their constituents than they currently have to be.

 

[Gmart]

So are you happy with the level of freedom you have VP?

Thanx for the correction btw, but you forgot to comment!

I would far rather have fewer laws, with freedom than more laws without. Sure a few more prisoners get caught but we never get more than a certain percentage, and at what cost?

Do you agree?

 

[kyser_soze]

I think he now defines freedom as agreeing with him.

Ah, just like TBaldwin-ite socialism

FTR, wot Roadie and BA have said...

 

[Roadkill]

The whole history of the states development has been the enclosure of and then specialisation of social functions - it takes them over and it makes them commodities or it makes them aspect of control rathe than being aspects of popular life . Where Matthews is wrong is in imagining the enclosed right as individual, when it was always bound up with and developed out of collective nature of rights. And it's where he goes wrong when he demands the right to do what he wants. he can't see the collective nature of our rights.

I'm not very up on the axes being ground here so I'm not quite sure what to make of the second sentence of that. Perhaps I should read the morality thread. Or not, maybe.

I broadly agree with the first sentence. I wonder, though, what precisely you mean by the 'enclosure' of social functions, and which social functions? Policing, welfare of various sorts, healthcare in many countries - all of those have become more or less state monopolies, although that's as process that's happened at different speeds in different places. Is that what you mean, or is there more to it than that?

 

[max_freakout]

Saying that knowledge is impossible implies that you are aware of the consequences of both it being possible and impossible, therefore requiring at least some level of knowledge on the part of the observer.

in other words, you are saying that 'knowledge is impossible' implies that 'knowledge is possible'

which is absurd

 

[max_freakout]

No it isn't. It is only common sense.

salaam.

knowing that knowledge is impossible is wisdom

(according to socrates anyway)

 

[stdPikachu]

in other words, you are saying that 'knowledge is impossible' implies that 'knowledge is possible'

which is absurd

Precisely your point.

 

[Santino]

I for one am thankful that the state has taken over certain social functions, viz. law enforcement, (assurance of) child welfare, education &c. Leaving people to look after these things themselves does not make for utopian self-reliant communities but to entrenchment of power structures, abuse and discrimination.

Government agencies are not without their huge flaws, obviously.

 

[fela fan]

The whole history of the states development has been the enclosure of and then specialisation of social functions - it takes them over and it makes them commodities or it makes them aspect of control rathe than being aspects of popular life . Where Matthews is wrong is in imagining the enclosed right as individual, when it was always bound up with and developed out of collective nature of rights. And it's where he goes wrong when he demands the right to do what he wants. he can't see the collective nature of our rights.

How does what you say here square with your comments re the blogger who got fined in court over some rather mild language towards that copper?

Seems he's lost his individual rights here, for the collective good of society, as represented by this copper.

 

[butchersapron]

What a nuanced reading. Of course it's the absolute right of the indivdual to so as they like to who they like when they like versus fascism )in the form of min expectations of bahaviour).

Have a think about how 'society' is represented and how that representation is constituted.

 

[butchersapron]

I for one am thankful that the state has taken over certain social functions, viz. law enforcement, (assurance of) child welfare, education &c. Leaving people to look after these things themselves does not make for utopian self-reliant communities but to entrenchment of power structures, abuse and discrimination.

Government agencies are not without their huge flaws, obviously.

Well, we're now in a de facto postion where we generally have no experience of these things as being part of our own behaviour, they're now seen as being part of the actions of specialists and attempts to go against that grain are punished. That's the way it is and i can't see it changing immediately. People do learn to adapt though. Collectively and individually. In a context of support for non-state imposed norms i do believe that people can/have/wil adapt and learn to behave in a socially repsonsible (eurgh!) way.

I'm not going to offer the facile argument that just because we did something historically we can/should do them that way again, equally, i would expect people to reject the argument that because we do things a certain way now we have to do so in the future.

 

[Santino]

Well, we're now in a de facto postion where we generally have no experience of these things as being part of our own behaviour, they're now seen as being part of the actions of specialists and attempts to go against that grain are punished. That's the way it is and i can't see it changing immediately. People do learn to adapt though. Collectively and individually. In a context of support for non-state imposed norms i do believe that people can/have/wil adapt and learn to behave in a socially repsonsible (eurgh!) way.

I'm not going to offer the facile argument that just because we did something historically we can/should do them that way again, equally, i would expect people to reject the argument that because we do things a certain way now we have to do so in the future.

What I meant to convey was that historically when people have been in charge of most of theiir social functions (bit of an awkward way of saying that, but still) it has generally resulted in huge abuses of people's welfare. To put it very simplistically, most self-regulated societies have discriminated against women, had little time for legal niceties like the rule of law and burden of proof, and cared little for the suffering of those outside their community. (No doubt there are exceptions to these, but I see little evidence that most pre-modern societies didn't have most of these flaws.)

Maybe in the future we will manage to construct small autonomous communities that don't do this, but this will be a new achievement, not a return to our old ways.

 

[butchersapron]

What I meant to convey was that historically when people have been in charge of most of theiir social functions (bit of an awkward way of saying that, but still) it has generally resulted in huge abuses of people's welfare. To put it very simplistically, most self-regulated societies have discriminated against women, had little time for legal niceties like the rule of law and burden of proof, and cared little for the suffering of those outside their community. (No doubt there are exceptions to these, but I see little evidence that most pre-modern societies didn't have most of these flaws.)

Maybe in the future we will manage to construct small autonomous communities that don't do this, but this will be a new achievement, not a return to our old ways.

That's largely what i just said isn't it? That the idea of a return to some lost utopia is worthless, but that the current state of affairs is the result of a long series of quite deliberate actions, many of which are based on extending this state of affairs into the future regardless of ther need to do so or chnaging conditions, and so closing off possibilities of change - change that we can provisioanlly weigh based on past historical experience (and as you rightly say there's nothing in that that means we have to come to a positive conclusion).

 

[Santino]

That's largely what i just said isn't it?

I don't know, didn't you read it either?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So are you happy with the level of freedom you have VP?

In comparison with what?

Thanx for the correction btw, but you forgot to comment!

If you look closely you'll see a whole paragraph of comment, starting with the acronym "IMO...".

Do you agree?

Do I agree to a proposition that promotes "freedom as concept"? Of course. Do I agree with a proposition that promotes "freedom of action" without regard to it's social effect? No, because freedom to act should always be bounded by it's effect(s) on others, even if that bounding is only on the level of an individual weighing the consequences of their actions.

 

[fela fan]

What a nuanced reading. Of course it's the absolute right of the indivdual to so as they like to who they like when they like versus fascism )in the form of min expectations of bahaviour).

Have a think about how 'society' is represented and how that representation is constituted.

Well to be fair it's sometimes hard to get into the meaning you're trying to convey. You don't always use easily accessible language.

 

[Aldebaran]

knowing that knowledge is impossible is wisdom

(according to socrates anyway)

Realizing that knowledge is out of reach for the human brain - hence impossible for a human to obtain - is not wisdom. It is only common sense = something everyone can come to without any other effort than using their brain cells adequately.

Not everyone can come to wisdom, the demonstration thereof, which can serve as proof, is all around us.

salaam.

 

[Santino]

knowing that knowledge is impossible is wisdom

(according to socrates anyway)

There's none so foolish as those that claim to be wise.

 

[zion]

People can come to knowledge, of things within the realm of the empirically observable.

Someone who knows that the sun will come up in the east and set in the west, knows more than someone who thinks the sun will come up in the west and set in the east. Expertise is not only possible, but necessary.

Where human beings cannot be wise is in the realm of things that cannot be empirically observed. This would include all things pertaining to religious or supernatural matters. It is particularly foolish to pretend to know, factually, what the truth is regarding those things, because there can be no data on which to base one's knowledge. So, Socrates's dictum applies with particular force to religious affairs (as he demonstrates brilliantly in Euthyphro, where he shows that no-one can know for sure what constitutes pious behavior from the gods' perspective).

 

[Santino]

Where human beings cannot be wise is in the realm of things that cannot be empirically observed. This would include all things pertaining to religious or supernatural matters. It is particularly foolish to pretend to know, factually, what the truth is regarding those things, because there can be no data on which to base one's knowledge.

If there is no data on 'religious or supernatural matters' then it is a safe conclusion that there are no such matters.

 

[butchersapron]

Wow. That's a hell of a lot of things that suddenly don't exist. Maybe someone should inform the believers of this variety nonsense funpack?

 

[Aldebaran]

People can come to knowledge, of things within the realm of the empirically observable.

Someone who knows that the sun will come up in the east and set in the west, knows more than someone who thinks the sun will come up in the west and set in the east. Expertise is not only possible, but necessary.

The idea that such a thing as "the west" exists is purely a human invention. Reasoning within a human invented frame is hardly "coming to knowledge".

Socrates's dictum applies with particular force to religious affairs (as he demonstrates brilliantly in Euthyphro, where he shows that no-one can know for sure what constitutes pious behavior from the gods' perspective).

That is hardly "brilliant", only a logical conclusion anyone can come to by using one braincell adequately.

salaam.

 

[max_freakout]

Realizing that knowledge is out of reach for the human brain.

what is the difference between 'realizing' and 'knowing'?

Do you know that knowledge is impossible to obtain, after you have realised it?

 

[max_freakout]

There's none so foolish as those that claim to be wise.

and there's none so wise as those who claim to be foolish

 

[zion]

Reasoning within a human invented frame is hardly "coming to knowledge".

You want to posit another kind of knowledge that humans can have? Be my guest.

If you're going to pick about the use of "west", then all I have to do is to say that "knowledge" is a human construct too. But that really gets us nowhere. The difference between us, perhaps, is that I feel comfortable with the idea that any knowledge we can possibly have will be filtered through our human frame of reference. That doesn't make it true or untrue in a different frame: we can't possibly tell what would.