NationStates Jolt Archive

Democracy and variants of it places trust in the people to decide what is best for them. Virtually every example of nations where freedom has been granted to the people ( and maintained over a sufficiently long period of time ) indicate that freedom will result in security, safety and at least modest economic plenty.

What say you???

There is no "true" freedom, only government-appointed liberties.

True freedom is death.

There is no "true" freedom, only government-appointed liberties.
there is no true freedom in society. there was once true freedom in the state of nature, before we organised ourselves into a society. so, quite; there are no freedoms left but those granted to us by the government. (Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes).

well of course freedom is preferable to the alternatives - slavery or un-freedom - but it has its share of problems. too much freedom and we have anarchy, uncontrolled crime; too little and people are surely not happy. (is it possible to be happy, as a people, if slaves to a common master?)
but the real question is whether freedom is preferable to prosperity, or happiness. if they were mutually exclusive, which is more desirable. i'd prefer to be a slave and happy, than free and miserable.

Democracy and variants of it places trust in the people to decide what is best for them. Virtually every example of nations where freedom has been granted to the people ( and maintained over a sufficiently long period of time ) indicate that freedom will result in security, safety and at least modest economic plenty.

What say you???

Prior to freedom, the basic human needs for survival have to be provided. What use is freedom to a starving african farmer, or a freezing north korean? None.

It is very easy, from the comfort of the western middle classes to place supreme value on freedom, but if you don't know if there will be anything to drink in the next few days, freedom is the least of your concerns.

Once these basic needs are met, then you have to consider education and information. Freedom to choose without having either the tools with which to make the decision, nor the data to base the decision on, is meaningless.

Then you have to introduce a culture of autonomy. This means the ability to think of yourself as an individual with individual desires etc. This may seem a strange requirement as our culture regards this as a natural condition. However autonomy of the individual in society is a relatively recent invention. (Enlightenment period is when it really appeared). Freedom is only useful if you believe that you have a need or desire for it. If it is imposed on peoples who are not culturally prepared then they revert to older more authoritarian and totalitarian structures.

After all this, then yes freedom comes before democracy or economic success or peace.

There is no "true" freedom, only government-appointed liberties.

All governments exist at the good pleasure of those governed. Oppressive government? "A little revoultion, now and then, is a good thing." :)

Prior to freedom, the basic human needs for survival have to be provided. What use is freedom to a starving african farmer, or a freezing north korean? None.

It is very easy, from the comfort of the western middle classes to place supreme value on freedom, but if you don't know if there will be anything to drink in the next few days, freedom is the least of your concerns.

Once these basic needs are met, then you have to consider education and information. Freedom to choose without having either the tools with which to make the decision, nor the data to base the decision on, is meaningless.

Then you have to introduce a culture of autonomy. This means the ability to think of yourself as an individual with individual desires etc. This may seem a strange requirement as our culture regards this as a natural condition. However autonomy of the individual in society is a relatively recent invention. (Enlightenment period is when it really appeared). Freedom is only useful if you believe that you have a need or desire for it. If it is imposed on peoples who are not culturally prepared then they revert to older more authoritarian and totalitarian structures.

After all this, then yes freedom comes before democracy or economic success or peace.

I strongly disagree. The average person anywhere in the world has an innate desire to be free to chart his/her own course and that of her/his family. I've seen this everywhere I've been. No one needs to be introduced to a "culture of atonomy." That way lies elitism, "dicatorship of the proletariat," etc.

When you free the innate energy and power of the individual or group, they will then procede to innovate, create, work, and build the sort of life they desire for their families.

I strongly disagree. The average person anywhere in the world has an innate desire to be free to chart his/her own course and that of her/his family. I've seen this everywhere I've been. No one needs to be introduced to a "culture of atonomy." That way lies elitism, "dicatorship of the proletariat," etc.

When you free the innate energy and power of the individual or group, they will then procede to innovate, create, work, and build the sort of life they desire for their families.

I would love to be able to agree with you, it would fit much more comfortably with the image I would like to hold of my fellow humans and myself.

Unfortunately the supposedly "innate" desire to be free is something that simply did not widely exist prior to the enlightenment in Europe (End of the 17th century and onwards).

Throughout history, there have been outbreaks of desire for personal freedom and expression. Ancient Greek democracy, being the most famous example, but until this value became institutionalised by the wave of anti feudal revolutions in Europe (and the Americas) in the 18th and 19th centuries it always relapsed into bad old fashioned totalitarianism.

The majority of people simply do not care about their freedom, so long as they have food, shelter, water, sex, and if in a developped region, entertainment. It is a sad reflection on humanity, but a generally true one.

I disagree. I hate democracy and "freedom" though.

I'm gonna draw a distinction between "freedom" and "democracy". Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens generally have a say in how things are run (which we do through representational democracy, aka a republic). Freedom...is a higher ideal, and its definition will vary by culture and ideology.

Democracy I fully believe is a good thing. Although its effects aren't always pretty (people tend to get the kind of government they deserve), a firm constitutional democracy is the best prevention of tyrrany.

Freedom however becomes entirely subjective. Political freedom is widely agreed upon as a good thing, aka voting. But how about economic freedom? Obviously, people differ on how to be truly free. I fall somewhere inbetween the great capitalist/socialist debate. As for social freedom, I stand pretty strong on the libertarian side, but I recognize that a large percentage of people feel that you can be free, even if you do not have the right to drink until age 21, never have the right to smoke weed, never have the right to marry someone of the same sex, etc.

True freedom is death.

I sure hope so. Unfortunately, by the time you find out, it's too late to change your mind. :p

What you say Eutrusca, is somewhat true, but you are missing out on too many cultural imperitives for it to be entirely true. The induvidual freedom you speak of it important, but in shades and degrees. In many cultures their is simply more of a focus on community/family than in other cultures.

This Freedom first thing you speak of is merely an ideal; devoid of practical application, no? Give me one example of a people, suddenly free, who then developed all the modern traits that we associate with a stable naiton. You can probably name several who became suddenly free, several who eventually became stable nations, but how many more failed to turn one into the next?

Outside factors, as you know, will rule the day. Stupid, pointless things, like how much money one robber takes from a bank, how much it rained on a weekend, wether or not a groundhog saw his shadow. A multitude of factors will detirmine success. Simply saying freedom conquers all is increadibly naive.

You realize this of course, and cover your ass effectively by stating, "And maintained over a sufficiently long period of time" in parenthasies. Why not just admit that sustaining freedom for ANY period of time is quite the achivement, and having a good economy, good security, etc aid immesurably in maintaining that "freedom"?