Free-dumb
If you're looking for freedom you won't find it here either now or later. Freedom cannot be limited by any law. Let's start calling it what it is. Anarchy. If this be what you wish for, then my advise to you is to find a nice secluded and un-inhabited island somewhere in the Pacific to live on for the rest of your days. There you can do what you want.
In any system worth creating, maintaining and living under there must be some law. When you say "freedom" I take it literally. As if the actual definition (not the one that's been pounded into our fragile little heads all of our lives) is important. If you want freedom for yourself you must also want it for those lovely child molestors and mass murderers who are indeed right where they should be, in prison. Errr, did I say freedom? I quite obviously meant anarchy, same thing, no big deal. I seriously doubt Americans, of all people, are ready for such a concept. It's not the system that's corrupt. It's the people. The system in and of itself is still good. It's when you add the greedy people and those in the general population that don't give a good damn that the system is laced in bad LSD, that's when it doesn't work.
Like George Carlin once said: "Those people on Jerry Springer? They're the average Americans. Below average can't even get on the show. Yeah, below average Americans are at home watching this shit!" Very wise man he is. He may of been joking but damned if he's not right.
If you want a system with law and order but called "freedom" you're a liar, and such a system will be corrupted soon enough. If you want a system with freedom and no law, you're a fool, because that system is already corrupt to begin with.
Please people, start calling things as they are. No sugar coating. No spin, no political correctness. If it's anarchy, call it that.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit- Login or register to post comments
- 549 reads
- Email this journal
- Remy92's journal
- 12 points
Black and white are not the truth.
Remy92 has courage enough to write honestly of freedom. Loopi is a coward for dwelling in the comfort and confinement borne of infinite shades of grey.
I see the difference between black and white. Difference does not define, it is not meant to serve as means to either end of some thoughtful consideration of elementary notions. Foolishness inclines many to "believe" in finding the concept of meaning in the process of consideration, however this could not be more removed from reality. What actually happens when one endeavors to define is the expression of one's relative position limited in relevance to the whole understanding, confined by relative relevance to trivial detail. Freedom is betrayed by definition, just as one does not see the forest for the trees. it seems to me, Remy92 can find agreement with these statements.
Freedom itself is an
Freedom itself is an absolute. Pure freedom allows the strong to prey on the weak. What's the difference? Freedom is defined by: The ability to act on choice without retribution of any kind. I've never seen in any definition the concept of not being able to harm others, infact most definitions do indeed say the opposite. Let's not redefine words to suit our agenda. You've been lied to my friend. You have taken their word for it. "You are free! Go shop and let us abuse you!". Just don't go to a public building and protest anything, if you want the illusion of freedom to live on forever and ever.
Go ahead speak in the colors of the rainbow. Just don't call it blue when it really is purple. That would be a lie.
Why if someone chooses to harm another is that not protected by freedom? Seems like a direct contradiction.
Shades of grey only bring confusion, that's why they're called shades of grey. Your first paragraph is such. I'm not sure if you're making light of child molestation or condemning it. Like a fool I'll give you the benefit of doubt. I'm sure I'll pay for it later.
Just plain Dumb
Freedom does not exist in a vaccuum. In an anarchic system we have a freedom loving child molestor, and this happy-go-lucky liberty lover is molesting a child. Oh my! The child does not want to be molested!!! Yikes! So, the child does not have the freedom to live free of molestation!!! And what about that wild and free character John Gacy, who chained his victims to radiators before killing them? I mean, the nerve, removing another's freedom!
So, no, anarchy is not freedom, since pure anarchy allows the strong to prey upon the weak.
A definition of freedom which is usable (note, unlike those who speak in absolutes and try to force their black and white extremes as capital-T Truth down one's throat, I try to speak in shades of gray...or maybe the colors of the rainbow, and I give my ideas and opinions as opposed to saying what anything IS.) for some, and CAN possibly clarify muddy waters: The ability to do what one wants or chooses, so long as it does not infringe upon the freedoms of another.
Under this definition, we have lost the need for over half the laws that exist. In fact if a law does not represent a prohibition agaist force or fraud, said law is unjust.
No double-speak. The bill of rights with NO limitation. Combined with strongly and fairly enforced laws against force and fraud, and we have a livable FREE country.
Not so hard is it?