mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama

[AFK]

Tragedy of the Commons

[Roo]

Where do you get this sense of contempt from what I've written? Is it because I wrote "our precious freedom"?
I do mean that in the sense that freedom is precious. It is important, it's something worth caring about, if not fighting for. But at the same time, those who speak loudest about freedom, are often the same ones who would take others' freedom away in a heartbeat.

Not true.  I screech the loudest, and I have no desire to take anyone's freedom away.

None whatsoever? IIRC, you've just left a job as a cop (so you said, at least). Doesn't that mean, by definition, that you did take some people's freedom away? Are you saying that you've never arrested anyone, or wanted to?

From a more personal perspective...living in my father's house (a Marine who served in the Vietnam war), I heard one thing and experienced another. He often spoke of fighting for freedom, while tyrannizing the entire family. It's only in the last few years, since I moved out of that house, that I have begun to feel free.

Not the same issue.  Parental control does not equal lack of habeas corpus, etc.

I agree that there's a difference between the freedom from control of the state, and that of parental control. But you were asking why I seemed to have a contempt of freedom, and I was explaining where it comes from. Namely, from a vast disconnect between the ideal and my experiential reality. People often ridicule that which they most fear.

[Messier Undertree]

Not true.  I screech the loudest, and I have no desire to take anyone's freedom away.

None whatsoever? IIRC, you've just left a job as a cop (so you said, at least). Doesn't that mean, by definition, that you did take some people's freedom away? Are you saying that you've never arrested anyone, or wanted to?

I think I just heard a distant "ung".

[Requia ☣]

Well gee, I'd love to link to it, but it didn't happen on the goddamn internet.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

None whatsoever? IIRC, you've just left a job as a cop (so you said, at least).

What makes you doubt it?  I'm just curious.

Doesn't that mean, by definition, that you did take some people's freedom away? Are you saying that you've never arrested anyone, or wanted to?

There is no freedom without the rule of law.  People take their own freedoms away, by attempting to deny the freedom of others.  That's what gets them arrested (note that I wasn't very big on busting potheads, etc).

I agree that there's a difference between the freedom from control of the state, and that of parental control. But you were asking why I seemed to have a contempt of freedom, and I was explaining where it comes from. Namely, from a vast disconnect between the ideal and my experiential reality. People often ridicule that which they most fear.

You're free if you think you're free.  Like the silly old bastard said, "There is no governor ANYWHERE."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Not true.  I screech the loudest, and I have no desire to take anyone's freedom away.

None whatsoever? IIRC, you've just left a job as a cop (so you said, at least). Doesn't that mean, by definition, that you did take some people's freedom away? Are you saying that you've never arrested anyone, or wanted to?

I think I just heard a distant "ung".

As "Bob" is my witless, I'm not sure if I'm offended or not.     

[The Good Reverend Roger]

All this reminds me of people in the suburbs bitching about how they don't want to pay property taxes to fund the schools because they don't have any children who go to those schools.

Then they act shocked when a fifth grader can't find the US on a world map.

Yes, and they deserve everything that's about to happen to them.

I have to pity.  "Sympathy" is somewhere in the dictionary, I am told, between "shit" and "syphilis".

Fuck 'em.  If they can''t understand that the bills have to be paid, then they are too fucking stupid to exist in a modern society.  Ship the silly buggers to the Aelutians (sp?), where they can eat each other.  Given that there is a limitless supply of dumbfucks, we will have a darwinistic cauldron that will produce a pool of cannibal super-soldiers that we can use to pointlessly fuck with random countries.

Hell, drop them in Jerusalem.  Problem solved.  Within a week, you'd see Jews and Muslims standing back to back, armed with machetes and looking for more horrible cannibals.

Or kill me.

TGRR,
Gotcher back, Habib!

[Roo]

None whatsoever? IIRC, you've just left a job as a cop (so you said, at least).

What makes you doubt it?  I'm just curious.

Because not all assholes are cops, and because here on the interwebs, you can pretend to be anyone you damn well please.

I do tend to believe that you were telling the truth, tho. Just keeping my ass covered, in case you weren't.

Doesn't that mean, by definition, that you did take some people's freedom away? Are you saying that you've never arrested anyone, or wanted to?

There is no freedom without the rule of law.  People take their own freedoms away, by attempting to deny the freedom of others.  That's what gets them arrested (note that I wasn't very big on busting potheads, etc).

Would you mind writing one of your next essay/rants on this subject? (unless you already have, in which case, just point me to it)

I've always figured it as the opposite...that I'm free, until I run into the wall of law. That the only time my freedom will be limited, is when I do something (and get caught) that is against the rule of law.

must think about this more...

[Cain]

I think the most basic way of summing up the freedom and law thing is looking at somewhere like Somalia.

In Somalia of course, they have no real law except for the words of the warlords.  Which means instead of a rule of law, you have a rule of the strong.  Meaning if you're not on the top of the pile, you have no freedom at all.  Without the law, freedom because a zero-sum game where it can be subject to the whims of any individual, including those who don't want you to be free at all.

Of course, all this assumes the law is both just and equally applied.  Which doesn't seem very likely, but is possible and has been managed a couple of times.

I'm sure Roger will have a more detailed explanation, however.

[Roo]

Still seems to me that rule of law (or rule of the strong) =/= freedom. I mean, I can see how it can be argued that laws (or rules of some kind) are necessary to maintain a state of freedom, but those very laws are the limitations of freedom. Which kinda makes it all just a sham anyway. It's like..."here, you can be free, but only within these walls". So how free are you then? It's the whole BIP idea, if I'm not mistaken. We're all just monkeys in cages, throwing shit at each other.

Yet, somehow...just as we have this strange concept that there's such a thing as fairness, we have this idea that it's possible in this world for people to be free. But (and this was my original point, iirc) here we are talking about freedom, as if we've ever really experienced such a thing. We believe that we have freedom, despite constantly bumping in to the bars of our cages.
Is that really freedom?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

the absence of law in no way guarantees freedom, and the absence of a BIP would just be a different kind of BIP anyway. the BIP is no more or less than the set of behaviors and opinions and beliefs you use to guide yourself around through life. the rule of law establishes that while the People recognize that freedom should exist, there have got to be limits -- ideally, limits that keep you from using your "freedom" to interfere with somebody else's "freedom." now, of course this system lends itself to overzealous legislation that ends up taking away freedom for no reason other than empty moral posturing or some such bullshit. but that's the nature of the beast, especially in a modern nation where providing a consistent rule of law requires an enormous government.

but would you rather be oppressed by a government that has at least provided a means of being changed by the people, or by some local tyrant who will kill you just for suggesting that somebody should change his mind? without some common authority that everyone can turn to for redress of grievances, you have perpetual in-fighting and war, because there is no mediator recognized as valid by all sides in a dispute: see Third World.

Without the rule of law, you would be oppressed, unless you set up some hippie commune type system where everyone was equal -- but even then there is punishment for breaking the rules, plus those systems are easy picking for conquerors.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think it depends on the interpretation of Freedom. I disagree with TGGR, that Laws are necessary for Freedom... it appears to me that they are necessary for a somewhat safe and functioning society, but those do not directly correlate with freedom. In Somolia, I would argue, there is Law, its simply not a law based on Bills voted on by a representative government... its the law of the Warlords.

There was a fantastic argument put together by Lysander Spooner right after the Civil War, which argued that the 'freedom' of the United States ended with that War. Even though the man was an abolitionist, wrote several essays on why slavery was unconstitutional and how slavery could be abolished... he considered the Civil War to have replaced the Free Association of States, with Association at Gunpoint... thus making all citizens slaves.

The 'law of the land', in my opinion, directly opposes Personal Freedom... since we as individuals don't get to choose if we wish to be a part of this union, this law-based society. Indeed, most citizens have little or no impact on what laws, or what punishments exist or how they are enforced. We elect representatives, whom we hope will pass reasonable laws, yet in practice, we have insane laws that many people disagree with (often including law enforcement officers). If we as individuals, have little or no say in what laws are passed (or which laws we will place ourselves under), then truly we cannot be said to have Freedom. A measure of freedom, along with a measure of safety appears to me, the best that a law based society can provide... and based on historical evidence, it appears that, in such societies, freedom usually decreases over time in an attempt to increase security.

[P3nT4gR4m]

One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.

This has always been my approach to law

[tyrannosaurus vex]

of course, we as the people do have a say in what laws are passed and enforced. no government, regardless of its philosophical basis, will listen to the people by default. it is the people who motivate their government to action or inaction; when the people don't feel like it's worth their time, then the government isn't all that bad. regardless of how close we get to the world of 1984, and even past that point, the same rules apply: governments are always weaker than their citizens.

as for the civil war and the free association of states, in principle i tend to agree, although in practice if the CSA had been allowed to persist, the 20th century would have been completely different for almost the entire planet, in many places for the worse.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

of course, we as the people do have a say in what laws are passed and enforced. no government, regardless of its philosophical basis, will listen to the people by default. it is the people who motivate their government to action or inaction; when the people don't feel like it's worth their time, then the government isn't all that bad. regardless of how close we get to the world of 1984, and even past that point, the same rules apply: governments are always weaker than their citizens.

I think you might have misunderstood my point.

If I do not say "Hey, I like these laws and I'm willing to live under them. Where do I sign?", then I do not have freedom. If the majority decides to outlaw alcohol, marijuana, guns, or whatever other thing they may be inclined to do... then the minority do not have the freedom to say "Ummm, thanks but I'll pass on living by those specific laws." It's not simply an issue of absurd abuses of legislation, such as the USAPATRIOT act. For the US specifically, I am of the opinion that we have far less say in laws than originally intended... at one time, a jury could nullify a law, if they determined that it was a bad law (the jury determined the guilt of the individual and the appropriateness of the law), yet today, most Judges do not allow the topic of Jury Nullification to even be discussed within the courtroom.

Freedom may not necessarily be the best end state for humans, particularly if the humans have to share resources... but let's not confuse the small and relative freedoms we currently have with real freedom, nor the safety provided by law enforcement with the protection of freedom. Freedom and Safety aren't the same thing at all.

as for the civil war and the free association of states, in principle i tend to agree, although in practice if the CSA had been allowed to persist, the 20th century would have been completely different for almost the entire planet, in many places for the worse.

Perhaps. Though, it seems far more likely to me that if Lincoln would have treated those states as Free Agents, they would probably not have seceded.

In the 1800's, the North maintained almost all of the factories, machinery etc. The South, in general ran plantations and grew foodstuffs. The North was buying imports, even before the Civil War, which would have covered their needs. The South, on the other hand, would have been in a very bad situation and would have had to invest heavily in education and technology in order to survive. Even if they did secede, I think their nation would probably have lasted only a few years and they would have returned to the Union, or the South would be in a much better state re education, industry etc.