[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1718174062431.png (327.35 KB, 680x433, ClipboardImage.png)

 

In the imperial core the concept of freedom is used very effectively to suppress class consciousness, particularly owing to its deliberate lack of specificity. In the imperial core proletarians are only are "free" (haha) to project their own inner desires on onto the word "freedom" whenever the bourgeois politicians use it to wax rhetorical. What kinds of freedom are there? In my mind there are multiple dimensions.

The first dimension is the To/From dimension of "freedom"

>There is freedom TO do things. Freedom TO become bourgeois. Freedom TO own a business. Freedom TO bomb the savages. Freedom TO genocide the undesirables.

<Then there is freedom FROM having things done to you. Namely bad things. This is the type of freedom the people in the imperial core are trained to ignore. The type of freedom that is more abstract, and comes up less often, but is possibly even more important on a society wide scale than the other type of freedom.

Then there is the General/Specific dimension of "freedom"


>Freedom for people in society to GO FISHING is GENERAL.

<Freedom for people to GO FISHING IF THEY HAVE A LICENSE is SPECIFIC.

Then there is the Spatial/Temporal dimension of "freedom"

>Freedom to drive IF YOU ARE ABOVE ADOLESENCE BUT BELOW SENILITY is a TEMPORAL freedom.

<Freedom to drive ONLY IN YOUR COUNTRY is a SPATIAL freedom.

Then there is Absolute/Relative dimension of "freedom."


>Absolutely, a prole is NOT free.

<Relative to bourgeoisie a prole is NOT free.
<Relative to slaves and prisoners and refugees a prole is free.
<Relative to besieged nations in the imperial periphery proles in the imperial core are free.

Feel free to critique this critique of freedom but the TL;DR here is that the bourgeoisie leverages the ways in which you are free to hide the ways in which you are not. They appeal to your aspirations by telling you that you or your family is "free TO" climb the ranks of class society if they just lick boot for several generations or set aside whatever tiny amount they make above subsistence, or avoid addictions and luxuries, etc. They tell you that you are "RELATIVELY free" compared to the savages who you are "free TO" join the military and bomb/sanction/coup/embargo/loot.

When troops in the imperial core say they "fought for freedom" they mostly mean RELATIVE freedoms and freedoms TO oppress others, and TEMPORARY freedoms (i.e. bourgeois concessions) which dry up after a while.

 

so what is "real" freedumb then?

 

>>1883577
Full Communism.

 

>>1883578
What does that look like in practical reality?

 

>>1883577
Some bullshit that doesn't exist and can't exist until we become the gas people from start trek

 

>>1883579
You put in your few hours of work and then can get whatever you want, no money required because you already worked

 

>>1883579
Where produce is so abundant that any person can do as they please without the slightest concern for pursuing a livelihood.

 

>>1883575
This freedumb thing is an american phenomena and imperial core is larger than just USA.

 

>>1883580
Listen nerd, if someone as cynical as H.P. Lovecraft can accept the concept as a real possible future so can you.

 

>>1883581
So i can have a mansion because i pushed a few buttons?
>>1883582
Doesnt excess produce create massive waste?

 

>>1883577
The argument here is that freedom is a nebulous concept, and that if someone talks about it, they should be interrogated as to what they mean. Otherwise they may succeed at the possible ulterior motive of allowing the audeince to imagine whatever they want.

 

It all starts to make more sense when you realize that "freedom" is a discourse that often comes from the oppressors, not from the oppressed.
>To put the main findings of this book in more general terms, the antigovernment rhetoric that continues to saturate our political life is rooted in slavery rather than liberty. The American mistrust of government is not part of our democratic heritage. It comes from slaveholding elites who had no experience with democratic governments where they lived and knew only one thing about democracy: that it threatened slavery. The idea that government is the primary danger to liberty has many sources, but one of its main sources in the United States involved the “liberty” of some people to hold others as chattel property.

 

>>1883589
Well that's freedumb. Just because a person can pursue and enjoy all the cultural and intellectual enrichment available doesn't mean they will.

An excellent education system being mandatory for children would fix that and some may disagree but mandatory schooling of the highest quality is a limit to freedumb that I can accept.

 

>>1883593
> The American mistrust of government is not part of our democratic heritage. It comes from slaveholding elites
Liberalism. America has no democratic heritage. The whole thing came from slaveowning elites in the first place. To speak meaningfully a "democratic heritage" in america is farcical. Distrust of bourgeois government is actually quite understandable, because a bourgeois government is only capable of representing the bourgeoisie, even if proles occasionally get elected in highly subordinate roles, and usually, only by paying lip service and doing the bidding of the bourgeoisie.

 

>>1883584
I was going to limit my criticism to America initially but

1. I didn't want to get moved to /USApol/ which always ignores effortposts in favor of talking about biden/trump/isg
2. I didn't want to discount the fact that the rest of the imperial core is becoming burgerized through osmosis

 

>>1883594
well one of the reasons that money exists is to limit the consumption people can have through purposeful spending. A limit on consumption would also mean a limit on production likewise, leading to less waste. Thats why labour vouchers can make much more sense than the post-value-form image people possess about "full communism". I dont really know what a moneyless "economy" could even look like, especially with millions/billions of people

 

>>1883598
Most of the stellar system, at least.
AI would have to be a lot better than it is now.

Certainly possible, but unfortunately capitalism has certain flaws for example the destruction of fixed capital to counteract the tendency of the profit rate to fall.

 

>>1883596
Yeah, I knew someone was gonna nitpick that part. the book is not written by a leftist it's worth reading

 

>>1883582
That reality is already here it's just that the bourgeoisie deliberately destroy surplus to keep up prices. There have been several notable instances where a surplus of a commodity was deliberately destroyed or removed from the market to raise prices. These actions are often taken by bourgeois capitalists and their governments to "stabilize" (i.e. keep up) market prices in times of oversupply. And this isn't just "grapes of wrath" stuff either. It's happened quite recently:

OPEC Oil Production Cuts:
>The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has a history of cutting oil production to manage supply and influence oil prices. For instance, in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, OPEC and its allies (OPEC+) agreed to significant production cuts to counteract the steep drop in demand and stabilize prices.
Coffee - Brazil (2001):
>In 2001, Brazil, one of the world's largest coffee producers, intentionally destroyed excess coffee stocks to reduce global supply and support prices. The government burned around 5 million bags of coffee to prevent a price collapse due to overproduction and low international coffee prices.
Dairy Products - Canada:
>The Canadian dairy industry, managed by supply management systems, occasionally destroys excess milk to maintain stable prices. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, disruptions in the supply chain and decreased demand led to excess milk being dumped by some dairy farmers to balance supply and demand.
2017 - US Crops:
>In 2017, a glut of crops, particularly corn and soybeans, led to some farmers in the United States leaving portions of their crops unharvested. While not a direct destruction, it was a deliberate decision to leave the produce in the fields to manage oversupply and avoid further price drops.
>The attacks on Nordstream destroyed the cheap gas that Europeans were using to power their homes, forcing them to purchase American LNG

The bourgeoisie will hand wave these practices saying they do it for "le price stabilite" and so on, but really they do it for profits. For example commodities like coffee which can be stored long term are deliberately destroyed rather than set aside in storage. Grocery stores in the imperial core throw out billions of tons of food, some of it not even expired, to make room for new deliveries. This includes fermented goods which can store for a long time, and also canned goods.

There is food insecurity even in the imperial core despite this. There is malnutrition despite this. It's never a problem of population or production, but of resources allocation and economic planning. They wouldn't overproduce in the first place if they were producing to meet needs rather than producing for profit. But planning is socialist so they won't do that.

 

>>1883598
>money exists is to limit the consumption people can have through purposeful spending
get rid of department IIb and only have departments I and IIa and this wouldn't be a problem. Economies don't need luxury goods. They only need means of production and necessities. If you want to have luxury goods at all, then give everyone exactly 1 "The People's Gaming Rig" or whatever.

 

>>1883601
Profit isnt an issue, i am just talking about logistics. All economies must be regulated. The post-scarcity image is one of irrational excess that i dont support. Capital has its own excess that is the key to liberating labour via "overproduction", but overproduction in the marxian analysis is ripe for distribution, whilst the overproduction of perishable goods in a postcapitalist context is a waste for everybody.
>>1883606
Yes exactly. The social mode of PRODUCTION is already here, we just need updates in the mode of distribution and exchange.

 

>>1883607
The purpose of life is luxury. Thats why people save where others spend all their money away.
Just price luxury goods higher and let people be ae to afford them.

 

>>1883606
Yes, the perverse incentives built into capitalism is another example, but let me have my freedumbs and dream big.

 

>>1883609
We can just take over the stellar system and everybody can have as many super computer gaming rigs as they want you know.

 

>>1883612
Why would someone want more than one playstation?
Also i expect a better society to aim for higher things than just idle leisure

 

>>1883614
For doing scientific research, that's what I want it for.

 

>>1883608
>The social mode of PRODUCTION is already here, we just need updates in the mode of distribution and exchange.
Even as early as Marx it was pointed out that production was already socialized. But we can't simply grandfather in those other necesssary changes through reforms. It's revisionist to think so. The bourgeoisie would never tolerate it. And to the exent that they allow any kind of social democracy, it's to stave off revolution, and then they institute reactionary rollbacks the first chance they get. This is how the shots of FDR's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society was followed up by the chaser of 50 years of neoliberalism starting in the 70s.

 

>>1883609
>The purpose of life is luxury
Hedonism. The purpose of life is to distribute heat, maintain homeostasis of the ecosystem, and survive long enough to reproduce. Luxury is mania. Too much luxury leads to depression from overstimulation and burning out your dopamine receptors. To be content is more sustainable than the mania of what people call "happiness." Happiness used to mean contentedness but people started to use it to mean mania. Mania leads to depression

 

File: 1718179628862.jpg (123.84 KB, 1038x778, 2B08R9M-1038x778.jpg)

>>1883617
Well its interesting since the bourgeoisie always lobbies for a change in the mode of distribution and exchange, but by tax cuts and a fixed issuing of currency. So these things are also class issues in terms of implementing specific policy.
Redistribution has already been forwarded by the keynesian revolution in FDR, yes, and this benefits the lower classes as far as it concerns the capacity for spending (the real reason why lower incomes are taxed less is because they spend more of their money for example).
I still live in an orthodox phantasia about the idea of cultivating a robust middle class (by promoting saving instead of spending), but in macroeconomic terms, where one saves, one must spend to keep the economy in balance.
This is also why bourgeois society creates welfare traps - because as the wages of workers are spent on necessities and rents, there must be an excess consumption too, which is offloaded on a "consuming class". "Free money" must circulate and be fed back to the bourgeoisie by sale of commodities.
We see other modes of exchange too with food stamps and other irredeemable tokens that act as "vouchers" for goods.
There are those who prefer UBI over welfare since welfare acts as a credit system in legitimating claims for money - UBI would offer the baseline of a "minimum salary" which would allow for saving instead of spending (especially where it concerns time-scales; say, if we got a lump sum at the beginning of the year instead of monthly installments.
My overall point is that capital's internal contradictions are churning out "solutions" to its crises of overproduction. We might say that capital is trying to cope with the power of labour, which as you mention, was always marx's meta-analysis: how does the superstructure adapt to the base?
this is also why the bourgeoisie have exported so much industry, since it empowers rentier capital in the first-world as a grab for class power against workers

 

>>1883619
Aristotle himself says that thinking is only possible once the necessities of life have been secured.
Is thinking also a type of mental masturbation to you? Should we be ascetic monks?

 

>>1883577
Real freedom has never been tried

 

Here's a PDF version of Marxist Leninist Soviet literature "Communism And Freedom" By former Editor-in-Chief of the Kommunist and former member Central Committee of the CPSU Richard Kosolapov

 

>>1883619
>Westoid middle-class psychobabble
Go away frustrated teenage edgelord

 

>>1883622
>orthodox phantasia about the idea of cultivating a robust middle class
Then you believe in extending the proletarian condition, and why shouldn't they cut you up for meat just to stop your thoughts?

 

>>1883623
>Aristotle himself says that thinking is only possible once the necessities of life have been secured.
He was correct. He was also a slave owning aristocrat who lived in a time before industrialization. Also thinking is the only luxury that costs nothing.
>>1883790
I respectfully disagree. These sentiments have existed outside the west as well as outside the petit bourgeoisie, as well as people over the age of teen.

 

>>1883577
God. God is completely free. Freedom is power mixed with control, God has a third aspect that mankind can never have: Morality. What God says is right.

 

>>1883619
Hedonism good, I live in a 24/7 manic state because I don't take suffering seriously.

 

>>1883836
God isn't completely free. It has to mechanistically operate every square inch of the fabric of reality itself. Freedom is only an aspect of god like law is.

 

>>1883837
nah your dopamine receptors will get burned out. it's unsustainable

 

File: 1718210585059.pdf (839.49 KB, 170x255, graeber manners.pdf)

>>1883832
>He was also a slave owning aristocrat who lived in a time before industrialization
Keep your woke mental illness to yourself.
>asceticism has existed outside the west
Don't care, the existence of a mental illness like idealism is not a warrant for its reproduction. Grow out of your adolescent Calvinist death cult, pdfrel.

 

>>1883848
Dopamine isn't mania, its anticipation

 

<We can observe the following traits shared by slavery and capitalism:
<1) Both rely on a separation of the place of social (re)production of the labor force, and the place where that labor-power is realized in production. In the case of slavery, this is effected by transporting laborers bought or stolen from one society into another one; in capitalism, by separating the domestic sphere (the sphere of social production) from the workplace. In other words, what is effected by physical distance, in one, is effected by the anonymity of the market in the other.
<2) The transfer is effected through ex changing human powers for money: either by selling workers, or hiring them (essentially, allowing them to rent themselves).
<3) One effect of that transfer is “social death," in the sense that the com­munity ties, kinship relations, and so forth which shaped that worker are, in principle, supposed to have no relevance in the workplace. This is true in capitalism too, at least in principle: a worker’s ethnic identity, social networks, kin ties, and the rest should not have any effect on hir­ing or how one is treated in the office or shop floor, though of course in reality this isn’t true.
<4) Most critically, the financial transaction in both cases produces abstract labor, which is pure creative potential. This is created by the ef­fects of command. Abstract labor is the sheer power of creation, to do anything at all. Everyone might be said to control abstract labor in their own person, but in order to extend it further, one has to place others in a position where they will be effectively an extension of one’s will, to be completely at one’s orders. Slavery, m ilitary service, and various forms of corvee, are the main forms in which this has manifested itself historically. Obviously, this too is something of an unrealized ideal: the struggle against overbearing forms of control has always been one of the key areas of labor struggle. But it’s worth noting that feudalism (or manorialism if you prefer) tends towards exactly the opposite principle: the duties owed by liege to lord tended to be very specific and intricately mapped out.
<5) A constant ideological accompaniment of this sort of arrangement is an ideology of freedom. As Moses Finley first pointed (1980), most soci­eties take it for granted that no humans is completely free or completely dependent. Rather, all have different degrees of rights and obligations. The modern ideal of political liberty, in fact, has historically tended to emerge from societies with extreme forms of chattel slavery (Pericles’ Athens, Jefferson’s Virginia), essentially, as a point of contrast. Medieval jurists, for example, assumed every right was someone else’s obligation and vice versa. The modern doctrine of liberty as a property humans could possess was developed, significantly, in Lisbon and Antwerp, cit­ies that were at the center of the slave trade at the time; and the most common objection to this new notion of liberty was that, if one owns one’s freedom, it should then also be possible to sell it (Tuck 1979). Hence, the doctrine of personal liberty— outside of the workplace— or even the notion of freedom of contract that one so often encounters in societies dominated by wage-labor does not really mean we are dealing with a fundamentally different sort of system. It means we are dealing with a transformation. We are dealing with the same terms, differently arranged: so that rather than one class of people being able to imagine themselves as absolutely “free” because others are absolutely unfree, we have the same individuals moving back and forth between these two positions over the course of the week and working day.

 

>>1883840
So God is only free when he himself accords to the preexisting law of virtue?

 

>>1883575
I think sometimes it's helpful to think not of freedom, but of control: of carrot and stick, of force versus persuasion (including persuading you to do something else)
A weak or poor regime needs to use the stick more than the carrot and force more than persuasion, and we read this as "oppression" and the opposite as freedom, rather than both simply being manifestations of power, and with "freedom" usually a warning sign of very, very secure power.

i.e. the US allows for more open political speech than many countries, but this comes not from kindness but from the security of the US government: talk all you want, it won't make a difference. a weaker regime knows that talk may spiral out of control, since the apparatus for directing discourse (i.e. control of media, availability of entertainment and other distractions, and in the last resort, scope for concessions) is limited.

 

>>1883836
>>1883840
>>1883944
If God is "omniscient" then he can't be free, because he always knows what he's going to do next. He doesn't even have the illusion of freedom, like a deterministic mortal does. Even in a non-deterministic universe or a many worlds universe, God still knows every possible outcome and every branching path that exists. He already knows every choice he could possibly make and the outcomes of that choice. And it wouldn't even be like he made a choice at all, since he would be equally aware of all possible alternatives and all moments across time.

 

>>1883968
Yet God must still always choose what he had already chose before time began. The choice remains in God's Will.

 

>>1883866
I honestly haven't the faintest clue what your schtick is. How is it "woke mental illness" to point out that Aristotle was a member of the ruling class? I wasn't even pointing that out to invalidate his point, just showing how he was one of the few people who had the resources and the free time to deeply philosophize in his society, since most people were busy doing the work of slaves, peasants, and artisans.
>asceticism
>idealism
>calvinist death cult
wasn't advocating any of these. Was simply pointing out that neurologically speaking it's unsustainable to be happy all the time. You should probably take a nap or eat some food if you haven't yet today. You seem grumpy.

 

>>1883971
contradiction and paradox are at the heart of the idea of God

 

>>1884005
Yes i agree
If reality is dialectical then there must also be rupture in the divine

 

>>1883577
True freedom lies in obedience to family, the party, and the state.
Once you recognize your own dependence on others and willingly submit, you become more free than any liberal who 'thinks' they are 'independent.'

 

>>1884182
Slave mentality, reported

 

>>1884182
big brotherpilled

 

>>1884182
>>1884182
>Once you recognize your own dependence on others and willingly submit, you become more free than any liberal who 'thinks' they are 'independent.'
Ah so true freedom is choosing to do the right thing. So there's still independence in that. You can't be made to do the right thing.
>>1884190
It's not slavery. Anon said willingly

 

>>1884293
The historical track record on genuine voluntarism is notoriously poor and you should be ashamed for selling your mental illnesses to others.

BREAK THE SPELL THERE'S A FAKER IN THE HOUSE

 

"Freedom" propaganda is just PR-washed FOMO (Fear of missing out) that marketers realized is a very compelling, and cheap tool. You don't actually have to sell the product, but the possibility of the product in as fantastical a form as you can entice the public's imagination to conceive of it.

 

>>1884310
From David Graeber's list of common traits of slavery and capitalism:
<1) Both rely on a separation of the place of social (re)production of the labor force, and the place where that labor-power is realized in production. In the case of slavery, this is effected by transporting laborers bought or stolen from one society into another one; in capitalism, by separating the domestic sphere (the sphere of social production) from the work­ place. In other words, what is effected by physical distance, in one, is effected by the anonymity of the market in the other.
<2) The transfer is effected through exchanging human powers for money: either by selling workers, or hiring them (essentially, allowing them to rent themselves)
<3) One effect of that transfer is “social death," in the sense that the com­munity ties, kinship relations, and so forth which shaped that worker are, in principle, supposed to have no relevance in the workplace. …
<4) Most critically, the financial transaction in both cases produces abstract labor, which is pure creative potential. This is created by the ef­fects of command. …
<5) A constant ideological accompaniment of this sort of arrangement is an ideology of freedom. As Moses Finley first pointed (1980), most soci­eties take it for granted that no human is completely free or completely dependent. Rather, all have different degrees of rights and obligations. The modern ideal of political liberty, in fact, has historically tended to emerge from societies with extreme forms of chattel slavery (Pericles’ Athens, Jefferson’s Virginia), essentially, as a point of contrast. Medieval jurists, for example, assumed every right was someone else’s obligation and vice versa. The modern doctrine of liberty as a property humans could possess was developed, significantly, in Lisbon and Antwerp, cit­ies that were at the center of the slave trade at the time; and the most common objection to this new notion of liberty was that, if one owns one’s freedom, it should then also be possible to sell it (Tuck 1979). Hence, the doctrine of personal liberty— outside of the workplace— or even the notion of freedom of contract that one so often encounters in societies dominated by wage-labor does not really mean we are dealing with a fundamentally different sort of system. It means we are dealing with a transformation. We are dealing with the same terms, differently arranged: so that rather than one class of people being able to imagine themselves as absolutely “free” because others are absolutely unfree, we have the same individuals moving back and forth between these two positions over the course of the week and working day.

 

>>1884345
The only freedom we have is to sell our freedom to the free market. The money we receive is not enough to afford the freedom to chose what we want, but we have the freedom to one day afford better options, as long as we continue to sell our lives away.

 

File: 1719097567471.mp4 (1.34 MB, 1080x826, ive got a meme here.mp4)

>>1884299
>you should be ashamed for selling your mental illnesses to others.

 

File: 1719131620147.jpg (206.08 KB, 680x596, GPKz-QRW8AAfkXs.jpg)

>>1884293
>you recognize your own dependence on others and willingly submit
Freedom is insight into necessity.

 

>>1892601
Psychoanalysis more properly solves this issue where the free will of the unconscious is bound to its determinate object in desire, and thus our freedom lies in bringing self-consciousness to our own limits in the necessity of fulfilling this desire.

 

>>1892601
>>1892602
So to say, freedom is our ability to be disgusted by pleasure, rather than to be embraced by it. This liberal notion is oppressive - the same way pleasure can quickly turn to pain, like tickling, or orgasm.

 

>>1883577
Freedom to not die of sickness. Freedom to pursue your life ambitions. Freedom to travel around the world. Freedom to not die of hunger.

 

>>1892601
>>1892603
>>1892602
Child molestation and rape can also be seen as the power of a forced pleasure, which is obviously traumatic. Freedom does not exist here, where force operates as a sort of constriction; a tension of the will. Its like how in martial arts you lose your ability the more aggressive you become - ping-pong is like that too.

 

Freedom entails agency to act. It does not refer to a purely passive condition that is "given". It may be treated as a passive condition if agency is ascribed to subjects, but subjects are not presumed to possess any agency. Every way Americans are treated is how a slave population is treated. Free people are not humiliated and raped every day and told "this is what you are".

 

If you are in a situation where you have to debate whether torturing other people is a "right", yet the right to exist at all is considered laughable, you don't have any rights, and you have no freedom to speak of.

Traditionally the liberal state's purview was limited. It promoted the rights of men to engage in business and association, the rights of a free press - all of which were never "absolute or unlimited" freedoms, but were understood to be rights that existed prior to declaring that they existed in constitutions. All of those were presumed to be regulated by the people's own judgement and deliberation, rather than purely individual rights where you squeal "me wantee" like a faggot. That is to say, it is perfectly reasonable for a liberal state to defend itself so that these conditions may continue, and reasonable for members of the electorate to see the state of their conditions and the world they live in. Those freedoms don't exist as ideals handed down from heaven. They exist, so far as they did, because the alternative was already one humanity was familiar with. They did not exist as a reward or ulterior motive for technocratic purposes. They can't really be defended by rationalizing them and saying this is what a state should be. For the liberal state, this was an assertion of what they were at the time and what they were doing, which is why the idea that the rights were codified and relitigated was shunned. If the conception of freedom had to be questioned, that ultimately was a political matter rather than a matter of procedure. The moment those freedoms are held by a technocrat who has no reason to ever allow an iota of freedom, any concept of freedom in the law is gone. There remain only excuses.

There is no freedom whatsoever in humanity during the past century. There is only laxity when enforcing the edicts that now rule over us, and permission granted to continue existing if you are harmless to the ruling order. If freedom is an abstraction, you've already lost.

The word you're looking for is one that is denied to you - security. You are not free unless there is a level of personal security to exercise anything meaningfully. This is why freedom was a watchword for the order of property more than it was an ideal of philosophy. Philosophers abhor freedom, except for their impunity. If the government did anything to foster those conditions, it did so for its motives. Usually this was because armies of the time conscripted from the militia their fighting men, as they did in the early United States.

Requiring a permit to share the commons and resources available to the public is not "violating freedom". It is an avenue for onerous overreach, if you need a permit to simply live or do anything in social life. Once that started, you definitely didn't have any freedom. You have to ask why we have a society where "papers please" became the rule, as if this were natural and organic and the way humans always behaved, genetically ingrained in them since the dawn of humanity.


Unique IPs: 28

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]