NationStates Jolt Archive

I have to admit that I haven't read 1984 in full, and the only real dystopian movie I have seen is V for Vendetta, so my perceptions may not be 100%.

I was thinking about it the other day, and what really makes the society of 1984 or V for Vendetta really bad? Alright; I'll admit that there is some unnecessary death, but those are usually retained for those who question the governing authority, which could be argued as understandable. With that, I was thinking what makes them really bad then? If you are an honest citizen who doesn't question the government, then life shouldn't be too bad; since you only lost your freedom but not much else.

So, NSG, why is freedom so important? How would you justify the merits of freedom to someone who would take it away from you? Why shouldn't we have a 1984 society or a V for Vendetta society?

So, NSG, why is freedom so important? How would you justify the merits of freedom to someone who would take it away from you? Why shouldn't we have a 1984 society or a V for Vendetta society?

Because the lack of freedom leads to the lack of equality, solidarity and rights. Those things are linked together.

Also, on the individual layer, you can't alienate all of your essence into society, just to speak Hegelian. We're not ants.

Such a government rules through fear. That being said, there must always be someone to fear. If they run out of people to fear, they will have to pick someone new to fear. What if it's you?

In 1984 the situation is pretty goddamned bad. You've got war going on just to keep the populations cowed (or at least, they're told that a war is going on), got the regular show-trials and executions of party members who go against the state, the changing and erasing of history to suit the whim of the party...

Basically, the worst excesses of all the shitty regimes in the 20th Centuary taken to the extreme.

Why shouldn't we have a 1984 society or a V for Vendetta society?
Because those are clear examples of abuses of power by those at the top. There's nothing wrong with a very powerful government so long as its actions are benevolent or at worst benign.

Because without freedom of choice we could be forced to watch Natalie Portman 'acting'.

I have to admit that I haven't read 1984 in full, and the only real dystopian movie I have seen is V for Vendetta, so my perceptions may not be 100%.

I was thinking about it the other day, and what really makes the society of 1984 or V for Vendetta really bad? Alright; I'll admit that there is some unnecessary death, but those are usually retained for those who question the governing authority, which could be argued as understandable. With that, I was thinking what makes them really bad then? If you are an honest citizen who doesn't question the government, then life shouldn't be too bad; since you only lost your freedom but not much else.

So, NSG, why is freedom so important? How would you justify the merits of freedom to someone who would take it away from you? Why shouldn't we have a 1984 society or a V for Vendetta society?

I'm lazy so, I'll give you the easy answer. How would you like it if your freedom was taken from you?

I have to admit that I haven't read 1984 in full, and the only real dystopian movie I have seen is V for Vendetta, so my perceptions may not be 100%.

I was thinking about it the other day, and what really makes the society of 1984 or V for Vendetta really bad? Alright; I'll admit that there is some unnecessary death, but those are usually retained for those who question the governing authority, which could be argued as understandable. With that, I was thinking what makes them really bad then? If you are an honest citizen who doesn't question the government, then life shouldn't be too bad; since you only lost your freedom but not much else.

So, NSG, why is freedom so important? How would you justify the merits of freedom to someone who would take it away from you? Why shouldn't we have a 1984 society or a V for Vendetta society?

When Rome finally fell, the population welcomed the invaders as liberators. You might consider that for a moment, then ask why.

The answer to 'why' is because as bad as the Lombards and the Goths and the Vandals were, the Roman Government was WORSE.

I'll have my old copy pasta with a side of garlic bread please.

Because without freedom of choice we could be forced to watch Natalie Portman 'acting'.

don't you talk about the mother of my children like that :mad:

I'm lazy so, I'll give you the easy answer. How would you like it if your freedom was taken from you?

I for one welcome government intervention in my candy choosing (finding what to wear could also be good)

Why is life itself important?

You would be surprised how many persons on this forum take it for granted. Wish it for thier nation of origin but not for others.

Why is life itself important?
Because life is power.

Take the example of the lesbian couple. Would you agree with a government taking people away and experimenting on then because of the way of life they chose?

To even think this sort of government could work makes me sick.

Brave New World would be a better starting point for this.

You would be surprised how many persons on this forum take it for granted. Wish it for thier nation of origin but not for others.

Hey, everyone! Miami Shores is trying to convince us that Iraq was about that! AGAIN!

*Grabs popcorn to watch the hijack*

Because the lack of freedom leads to the lack of equality, solidarity and rights.

No, it leads to lack of chance and creativity, we can all be equally unfree.

Chaos is ultimate creation, stasis is ultimate stability, as much as I appreciate the latter, I lean towards the former.

Hey, everyone! Miami Shores is trying to convince us that Iraq was about that! AGAIN!

*Grabs popcorn to watch the hijack*
No, I think he's talking about Cuba. And for fuck's sakes, don't get involved. We all know Iraq was a shit idea.

Well freedom is overrated if you agree with all that the oppressor is doing. If you don't, then you're fucked. So...

No, I think he's talking about Cuba. And for fuck's sakes, don't get involved. We all know Iraq was a shit idea.

STILL a hijack. :p

Because the lack of freedom leads to the lack of equality, solidarity and rights. Those things are linked together.

Also, on the individual layer, you can't alienate all of your essence into society, just to speak Hegelian. We're not ants.
^^ This. The rigid conformity imposed by totalitarian regimes is unnatural and cannot avoid repressing individual variation among people, not just in speech and action but even to the point of thought and appearance. Human beings cannot live that way, and the history of the rise and fall of various oppressive regimes of that kind shows how that goes.

Such a government rules through fear. That being said, there must always be someone to fear. If they run out of people to fear, they will have to pick someone new to fear. What if it's you?
^^ And this. Human beings also cannot live under the constant stress of menace and threat. It will make them -- even the leaders who impose it -- crazy after a while. Or else they will snap and break free of it in violent uprisings.

Ultimately, what people really want in life -- regardless of what kind of political system they live under -- is to be left alone. That's what freedom really boils down to -- being left alone to think, speak, eat, dress, fuck, work, etc, as they either please or need to, without constant interference from others who have nothing to contribute to the process of one's personal life (the oppressive state).

The urge towards this kind of freedom is so strong and so universal, that the only way leaders who lust after massive control can overcome it is by never letting up on the fearmongering. But that is a crazy behavior itself, and like most insane behavior patterns, it is not sustainable.

Brave New World would be a better starting point for this.
I'd guess he hasn't read that one, either.

I love it when people base deep philosophical questions on the basis of having watched one or two or one and a half pop-culture movies, but nothing of social-commentary literature, or actual philosophy, or even history.

Because in 1984 they hack into your NS nation and change the issue decisions you want. :(

Well, this forum would certainly not exist in such a society.

Human beings cannot live that way, and the history of the rise and fall of various oppressive regimes of that kind shows how that goes.

Not to be nitpicking, but liberal regimes have also risen and fallen. Nothing lasts forever, but that does not say anything about the suitability of a particular political system to the amorphous concept of "human nature".

Not to be nitpicking, but liberal regimes have also risen and fallen. Nothing lasts forever, but that does not say anything about the suitability of a particular political system to the amorphous concept of "human nature".
No shit, really? Now show us that either liberal regimes rise and fall in the exact same way as totalitarian regimes, or that totalitarian regimes have never fallen for the reasons I described. Without that, your nitpick is truly the single most pointless thing you could have chosen to say. Just because everything falls apart eventually, that does not invalidate, nor really affect in any way at all, an observation that one kind of thing tends to fall apart in one kind of way.

Or is it your contention that, if I say bridges tend to fall in a certain way, that statement is meaningless because souffles also fall but in a different way, so it says nothing about the tendency of things to fall? Forgetting, of course, that I was talking about bridges, not about falling, and that I had made no representations about the durability of souffles at all.

New Year's Resolution #1 for 09: 100% pointless nitpicks will be responded to with one flying shoe as of January 1, 2009.

Without that, your nitpick is truly the single most pointless thing you could have chosen to say.
He could have chosen to say, "oogilie-boogilie-dingilie-dong".

:p

Well, this forum would certainly not exist in such a society.

Sure it would! But the posts would have to get approved by Andaras first...

No shit, really? Now show us that either liberal regimes rise and fall in the exact same way as totalitarian regimes, or that totalitarian regimes have never fallen for the reasons I described. Without that, your nitpick is truly the single most pointless thing you could have chosen to say. Just because everything falls apart eventually, that does not invalidate, nor really affect in any way at all, an observation that one kind of thing tends to fall apart in one kind of way.

Or is it your contention that, if I say bridges tend to fall in a certain way, that statement is meaningless because souffles also fall but in a different way, so it says nothing about the tendency of things to fall? Forgetting, of course, that I was talking about bridges, not about falling, and that I had made no representations about the durability of souffles at all.

New Year's Resolution #1 for 09: 100% pointless nitpicks will be responded to with one flying shoe as of January 1, 2009.

:confused: Whoa... get a cuppa mate. Chill.

And I didn't say liberal regimes fall in the same way that totalitarian ones do. But they still do, due to economic collapse, radicalisation of the population, foreign intervention, coups d'etat and so on. The only difference, as far as totalitarian regimes are concerned, is that instead of radicalisation, you have uprisings, and the two things are not totally disjunct.

My point was, however, that to say that freedom is in the human condition, because totalitarian regimes fall is moronic.

The urge towards this kind of freedom is so strong and so universal, that the only way leaders who lust after massive control can overcome it is by never letting up on the fearmongering. But that is a crazy behavior itself, and like most insane behavior patterns, it is not sustainable.

I disagree, except for the last sentence. (It is crazy behavior.) Freedom is scary; it means you have to do stuff and take responsibility for it. The Nazis (yes, I know, Godwin's, but when we're talking about totalitarian regimes it at least makes sense) did not seize power militarily, and there's no guarantee they would have been internally overthrown if the Allies hadn't invaded. In the past decade Russia has inched slowly toward its totalitarian past, which seems to suit much of the populace just fine. It's comfortable to be part of the group.
There's a pretty good book from the 40s, Escape from Freedom, by Erich Fromm. He tries to explain psychologically the turn towards authoritarianism, and the related scenario of mass consumerism in places like the US (and why both are unhealthy).

Why is freedom important? Because it's the only way that allows for human beings to be responsible for their actions.

If they're not free, there's no responsibility, and consequently no justice.
And justice, a sense of fairness if you like, is inate to all primates, and to a good few other mammals as well. It's a very basic emotion.

Sure it would! But the posts would have to get approved by Andaras first...

*shudders*

He could have chosen to say, "oogilie-boogilie-dingilie-dong".

:p
That actually would have seemed less pointless in the context. :D

:confused: Whoa... get a cuppa mate. Chill.

And I didn't say liberal regimes fall in the same way that totalitarian ones do. But they still do, due to economic collapse, radicalisation of the population, foreign intervention, coups d'etat and so on. The only difference, as far as totalitarian regimes are concerned, is that instead of radicalisation, you have uprisings, and the two things are not totally disjunct.

My point was, however, that to say that freedom is in the human condition, because totalitarian regimes fall is moronic.
Well, you're wrong, about all your "points." And you still lack a real point. And since you tried (laughably) to defend your pointless interruption, you will be smacked with two shoes. I'm packing them up for shipping to you right now.

Two shoes is the new limit for pointlessness. Any further attempts to plaster an appearance of meaning over these current, inane and ill-thought-out posts of yours will be ignored -- as they deserve.

Also, I am having a cuppa. You are the first, early, recipient of Muravyet's new zero-tolerance policy for really, seriously, pointless BS. Fun, huh?

. You are the first, early, recipient of Muravyet's new zero-tolerance policy for really, seriously, pointless BS.

You're going to give yourself apoplexy by regularly visiting these forums then.

That, and you'll run out of shoes real fast.

I disagree, except for the last sentence. (It is crazy behavior.) Freedom is scary; it means you have to do stuff and take responsibility for it. The Nazis (yes, I know, Godwin's, but when we're talking about totalitarian regimes it at least makes sense) did not seize power militarily, and there's no guarantee they would have been internally overthrown if the Allies hadn't invaded. In the past decade Russia has inched slowly toward its totalitarian past, which seems to suit much of the populace just fine. It's comfortable to be part of the group.
There's a pretty good book from the 40s, Escape from Freedom, by Erich Fromm. He tries to explain psychologically the turn towards authoritarianism, and the related scenario of mass consumerism in places like the US (and why both are unhealthy).
What do you disagree with? That the regimes are unsustainable and tend to fall due to the failure of their own internal structures? No, apparently you don't disagree with that.

And since I never said one single word about how totalitarian regimes arise, you apparently have nothing to disagree with me on that point, either. After all, I never said totalitarian regimes are always imposed by force, so pointing out that the Nazis did not seize power by force is hardly a counter-argument to my statement, now is it?

(This thread, coming now at the end of a long, tough year, is really motivating me to get that huge major upgrade of my computer system so I can go back to playing the fancy graphical MMORPGs that my poor little OS stopped being able to run -- because in those fantasy worlds, the monsters just attack and die. They don't pretend I said things I didn't say but that they wish I had so they could argue against it.)

(Another thought: Forget NS2. What we need is a graphical version of NSG, that comes with usable strawmen and flamethrowers.)

Why is freedom important? Because it's the only way that allows for human beings to be responsible for their actions.

If they're not free, there's no responsibility, and consequently no justice.
And justice, a sense of fairness if you like, is inate to all primates, and to a good few other mammals as well. It's a very basic emotion.
A very good point.

You're going to give yourself apoplexy by regularly visiting these forums then.

That, and you'll run out of shoes real fast.
I live near a PayLess Shoes store. They have regular two-for-one sales.

A very good point.

I actually think that this is what prompted the philsophical thoughts about liberty and personal freedoms to begin with... what do we need to be able to hold people responsible for? And what can we do without?

What do you disagree with? That the regimes are unsustainable and tend to fall due to the failure of their own internal structures? No, apparently you don't disagree with that.
I think I disagree with the part I quoted, about the urge to freedom being strong and universal and leaders being forced to use fearmongering. That is why I quoted it.

And since I never said one single word about how totalitarian regimes arise, you apparently have nothing to disagree with me on that point, either. After all, I never said totalitarian regimes are always imposed by force, so pointing out that the Nazis did not seize power by force is hardly a counter-argument to my statement, now is it?
Well, if the urge to freedom is strong and universal, a regime like that would not have been voted in by 40% of the population. Again, it is not a counter-argument to any of your statement except for the part I quoted. That is why I quoted it.


(Another thought: Forget NS2. What we need is a graphical version of NSG, that comes with usable strawmen and flamethrowers.)
I do not see how what I said was arguing against a strawman at all. The part I quoted I disagreed with and argued against. The rest of your post I did not quote because I took no issue with it.

I live near a PayLess Shoes store. They have regular two-for-one sales.

"1000 shoes and 1 internets to throw them into plz"

Back OT, I think it's a bit simplistic to argue that the urge to freedom will trump totalitarianism as it is the human condition (paraphrased, feel free to correct with a shoe :p). I think there is a more primary urge for security, and then the give-and-take between security and freedoms. Otherwise anarchy would be the preferable state of affairs.

You don't have to oppress your own people to do it though, only make it clear to them that there IS a threat (Communism, MAD etc), one substantial enough to give credence to the removal of freedoms. A good PR machine manufactures external threats, so there is nothing to 'rise up against'. Survival is more important than freedom.

I think I disagree with the part I quoted, about the urge to freedom being strong and universal and leaders being forced to use fearmongering. That is why I quoted it.
Except, of course, for the fact that what you said did not actually refute what I said, nor was it actually incompatible with what I said.

So, you may have thought you were disagreeing with me, but you were wrong.

Well, if the urge to freedom is strong and universal, a regime like that would not have been voted in by 40% of the population. Again, it is not a counter-argument to any of your statement except for the part I quoted. That is why I quoted it.
Right, I see, so in your (apparently shallow and simplistic) point of view, if some people under great social stress opt for a more controlling system in response to their immediate problem of social instability (though not a totalitarian system; I remind you that the Nazis were not voted in as dictators; they seized that power and imposed their totalitarian controls later, without a vote), that means that there is no urge towards the personal freedom in the human psyche.

You offer an example of a population NOT voting in a gang of ruthless, ultra-controlling dictators and claim it shows that I am wrong when I say that people in general find it impossible to live for very long under the rule of ruthless, ultra-controlling dictators. Uh-huh.

I do not see how what I said was arguing against a strawman at all. The part I quoted I disagreed with and argued against. The rest of your post I did not quote because I took no issue with it.
It was you arguing against a strawman you propped up on me because it was claiming to respond to something I had not actually said. In order for you to claim that you were being responsive to me, you have to assume facts not in evidence, i.e. that my statement included content that is not actually there.

However, when we strip away the parts that you attributed falsely to me (the parts made of straw), we see that your comment does not actually refute my comment, nor are the two comments incompatible.

This is the second time I have explained this. There will not be a third.

In the USA at least it won't come by revolution. Loss of freedom will come by people just giving it away. Someone said already people just want stability.

They want to be able to work, feed their families, put a roof over their heads, safe and secure streets

Brave new world would work perfectly in the USA it would come out more like the movie Demolition Man.

We almost have a formula for success

1. Lock away criminals, keep the public safe
2. Guarantee work (pay check)
3. Feed, clothe, provide goods for public to purchase
4. Allow them to move around where they please, not that most of them will go anywhere
5. Allow them to worship or not as they please or not

On the control side

We would control the media give them interesting stories about Hollywood & rock stars nothing of any substance. Movies, TV, Radio, Music, Distract the public. It is very hard to rebel when you haven't a clue what is going on.

We encourage people that voting is too much trouble and you have to pay attention to the issues, we will eliminate all this for you and we will do the right thing for you

Anyone who speaks out against Us is put in a re-education camp. We don't actually kill them that could lead to retaliation. We train them to good productive citizens.

We create a huge police force / Military this is also good for employment. We keep undesirables off the street.

"1000 shoes and 1 internets to throw them into plz"

Back OT, I think it's a bit simplistic to argue that the urge to freedom will trump totalitarianism as it is the human condition (paraphrased, feel free to correct with a shoe :p). I think there is a more primary urge for security, and then the give-and-take between security and freedoms. Otherwise anarchy would be the preferable state of affairs.

You don't have to oppress your own people to do it though, only make it clear to them that there IS a threat (Communism, MAD etc), one substantial enough to give credence to the removal of freedoms. A good PR machine manufactures external threats, so there is nothing to 'rise up against'.
Except that the urge to freedom DOES trump totalitarianism, eventually, every time. There is a strong urge for security, but the desire not to be interfered with on a personal level is even stronger. Human history proves this. It is the very thing that causes people to think that totalitarian regimes are oppressive. It is not an idea that philosophers impose based on theory. It is an observation of the people who live within such regimes based on how difficult they find it to do that.

You talk about the give-and-take between freedom and security, but the fact is, go too far in either direction, and you get an effect of diminishing returns. And frankly, the most sustainable balance seems to have more freedom than security, perhaps because, in a sense, security is heavier than freedom.

Actually, now that I think of it, I dispute your assertion that people have an urge towards security.

No, I say that people don't want security. They want stability. That does not necessarily have to come in the form of any particular kind of controlling power structure. They only want security to the extent that it will give them stability -- the stability that will allow them to exercise their freedom without undue interference.

Survival is more important than freedom.
To you, maybe.

To other people, survival without freedom is not worth the trouble.

And to me, I fail to see how a person can safeguard their own survival if they do not have freedom. I feel neither free nor safe, if my survival is dependent on someone else having power over me.

I think the answer to the question of the OP is "Because we think it's important". :p

Except, of course, for the fact that what you said did not actually refute what I said, nor was it actually incompatible with what I said.

So, you may have thought you were disagreeing with me, but you were wrong.
What did you say, then? I was arguing against "what people really want in life -- regardless of what kind of political system they live under -- is to be left alone" and "The urge towards this kind of freedom is so strong and so universal, that the only way leaders who lust after massive control can overcome it is by never letting up on the fearmongering." My main point was that many times people will happily surrender their freedom and do what they're told because freedom brings with it responsibility and uncertainty (basically what Cabra West said, which you agreed with). A totalitarian system could continue indefinitely, then. You could say the reason for this is "never letting up on the fearmongering," but fearmongering would not be nearly as effective if the people did not already have fears.
Right, I see, so in your (apparently shallow and simplistic) point of view, if some people under great social stress opt for a more controlling system in response to their immediate problem of social instability (though not a totalitarian system; I remind you that the Nazis were not voted in as dictators; they seized that power and imposed their totalitarian controls later, without a vote), that means that there is no urge towards the personal freedom in the human psyche.

You offer an example of a population NOT voting in a gang of ruthless, ultra-controlling dictators and claim it shows that I am wrong when I say that people in general find it impossible to live for very long under the rule of ruthless, ultra-controlling dictators. Uh-huh.
Really? Do you think people really voted in the party that said quite clearly it did not like democracy, that the Volk was stronger and superior to the individual, and that elections shouldn't even exist except as a way for the people to show their support of the leader and then were surprised by what happened? Even assuming they were tricked, plenty still through their support behind the ideology and policies of the new state.

It was you arguing against a strawman you propped up on me because it was claiming to respond to something I had not actually said. In order for you to claim that you were being responsive to me, you have to assume facts not in evidence, i.e. that my statement included content that is not actually there.

However, when we strip away the parts that you attributed falsely to me (the parts made of straw), we see that your comment does not actually refute my comment, nor are the two comments incompatible.
You have not said what I assumed or what you really said. I could very well have misread your argument, it wouldn't be the first time, but there's no way I know that unless you say, "You said I said X when I really said Y." But again, just saying I was "claiming to respond to something [you] had not actually said" is not helpful.

(Another thought: Forget NS2. What we need is a graphical version of NSG, that comes with usable strawmen and flamethrowers.)


What would it be like? Do you get to shoot people in the ''you have failed me''-style?

At the time everyone thought the Nazis were the pinnacle of discipline and order. Hitler was voted Time Man of the Year. Totalitarianism works so long as it is not acted on by some "outside" force. The Nazi would have remained under the same system for many year the problem was they started taking over countries. That is what force other countries to act.

Coup d'etat are usually just a transfer of power, rarely do they change much, other than the leadership.

What did you say, then? I was arguing against "what people really want in life -- regardless of what kind of political system they live under -- is to be left alone" and "The urge towards this kind of freedom is so strong and so universal, that the only way leaders who lust after massive control can overcome it is by never letting up on the fearmongering." My main point was that many times people will happily surrender their freedom and do what they're told because freedom brings with it responsibility and uncertainty (basically what Cabra West said, which you agreed with). A totalitarian system could continue indefinitely, then. You could say the reason for this is "never letting up on the fearmongering," but fearmongering would not be nearly as effective if the people did not already have fears.

Really? Do you think people really voted in the party that said quite clearly it did not like democracy, that the Volk was stronger and superior to the individual, and that elections shouldn't even exist except as a way for the people to show their support of the leader and then were surprised by what happened? Even assuming they were tricked, plenty still through their support behind the ideology and policies of the new state.


You have not said what I assumed or what you really said. I could very well have misread your argument, it wouldn't be the first time, but there's no way I know that unless you say, "You said I said X when I really said Y." But again, just saying I was "claiming to respond to something [you] had not actually said" is not helpful.
I did say it. IN THE THREAD.

I did explain it. IN THE THREAD.

I did explain why your arguments are not working as refutations of my argument. IN THE THREAD.

I refuse to restate the thread for you. It's not long enough to warrant that.

If you refuse to re-read, or you do re-read with my explanations as guidance, and still don't get it, then I do not have the power to help you any further. I stand by my statements and my dismissal of your statements. If you don't understand why, I'm sorry, but that's not a problem I can solve, apparently.

What would it be like? Do you get to shoot people in the ''you have failed me''-style?
Oh, absolutely. :D

Well, you're wrong, about all your "points." And you still lack a real point. And since you tried (laughably) to defend your pointless interruption, you will be smacked with two shoes. I'm packing them up for shipping to you right now.

Two shoes is the new limit for pointlessness. Any further attempts to plaster an appearance of meaning over these current, inane and ill-thought-out posts of yours will be ignored -- as they deserve.

Also, I am having a cuppa. You are the first, early, recipient of Muravyet's new zero-tolerance policy for really, seriously, pointless BS. Fun, huh?

Flaming much?

Except that the urge to freedom DOES trump totalitarianism, eventually, every time. There is a strong urge for security, but the desire not to be interfered with on a personal level is even stronger. Human history proves this. It is the very thing that causes people to think that totalitarian regimes are oppressive. It is not an idea that philosophers impose based on theory. It is an observation of the people who live within such regimes based on how difficult they find it to do that.

You talk about the give-and-take between freedom and security, but the fact is, go too far in either direction, and you get an effect of diminishing returns. And frankly, the most sustainable balance seems to have more freedom than security, perhaps because, in a sense, security is heavier than freedom.

I'm not sure the entirety human history proves anything coherent, apart from all sorts of regimes have fallen, and all sorts of regimes have lasted for a long time. In what terms are you looking at the whole of human history to make such an assertion?

The relative 'weights' will depend upon the situation, education, propoganda etc. Harsh regimes tend to spring up out of anarchic and dangerous situations because people care about not getting shot, having food and a roof over their heads more than freedom.

Actually, now that I think of it, I dispute your assertion that people have an urge towards security.

flip-flopper :p

No, I say that people don't want security. They want stability. That does not necessarily have to come in the form of any particular kind of controlling power structure. They only want security to the extent that it will give them stability -- the stability that will allow them to exercise their freedom.

Well, the basis for the exercise of ANY freedoms at all is personal survival. My point was that the threat only needs to appear big enough for people to be willing to sacrifice freedoms. From then on it's a slippery slope, because it becomes the norm. 'Security to the extent it gives them stability' is entirely contextual.

To you, maybe.

To other people, survival without freedom is not worth the trouble.

And to me, I fail to see how a person can safeguard their own survival if they do not have freedom. I feel neither free nor safe, if my survival is dependent on someone else having power over me.

No, not necessarily to me, but that's by the by. People are different.

Any framework for being able to have 'rights' in the sense of 'freedom to do x' apart from anarchy would require subjecting yourself to laws, and subjecting yourself to the power of the enforcement of those laws. Is the ability to safeguard your own survival just an ability or a freedom, or both? Don't you sacrifice this to a large degree when agreeing to the rule of law, where it is done by proxy?

Flaming much?
If I had insulted you, that would be flaming. Belittling your argument is an attack on the argument, not the poster. Of course, if you disagree, you can always direct your complaint to a mod. As I have nothing further to say to you on this matter, I don't think it will make much of a difference. Have a nice day.

If I had insulted you, that would be flaming. Belittling your argument is an attack on the argument, not the poster. Of course, if you disagree, you can always direct your complaint to a mod. As I have nothing further to say to you on this matter, I don't think it will make much of a difference. Have a nice day.

Uhm, you could have at least justified you ill-tempered words, rather than just say "oh you're wrong... *abuse*".

Oh, absolutely. :DExcellent. :D

I'm not sure the entirety human history proves anything coherent, apart from all sorts of regimes have fallen, and all sorts of regimes have lasted for a long time. In what terms are you looking at the whole of human history to make such an assertion?
What do you mean "in what terms"?

The relative 'weights' will depend upon the situation, education, propoganda etc. Harsh regimes tend to spring up out of anarchic and dangerous situations because people care about not getting shot, having food and a roof over their heads more than freedom.
Just because the pendulum swings, it does not mean that what I say is not true. People adjust their expectations to match circumstances, but everyone has a limit to what they will tolerate, including from those who purport to rule. The same people who, when they feel threatened, will seek a "strongman" to protect them, will come to see that strongman as the main threat, once they no longer fear the original perceived threat as much. Then the strongman's days will be numbered, as soon as the people he thinks he controls feel strongly enough that they don't need him anymore.


flip-flopper :p
Flip-flops are cheap and easy to throw. :D

Well, the basis for the exercise of ANY freedoms at all is personal survival. My point was that the threat only needs to appear big enough for people to be willing to sacrifice freedoms. From then on it's a slippery slope, because it becomes the norm. 'Security to the extent it gives them stability' is entirely contextual.



No, not necessarily to me, but that's by the by. People are different.

Any framework for being able to have 'rights' in the sense of 'freedom to do x' apart from anarchy would require subjecting yourself to laws, and subjecting yourself to the power of the enforcement of those laws. Is the ability to safeguard your own survival just an ability or a freedom, or both? Don't you sacrifice this to a large degree when agreeing to the rule of law, where it is done by proxy?
I see a gulph of semantics separating our arguments. Do I really feel like trying to sort out another briar-patch of terms and jargon today?

With that, I was thinking what makes them really bad then? If you are an honest citizen who doesn't question the government, then life shouldn't be too bad; since you only lost your freedom but not much else.

So, NSG, why is freedom so important? How would you justify the merits of freedom to someone who would take it away from you? Why shouldn't we have a 1984 society or a V for Vendetta society?

In 1984 you are tortured, and killed simply for thinking about fighting back against the government. If they even suspect you of a crime (there are no laws) they will torture you until you confess, then they will kill you. The reason freedom is a good thing is because if it were not we would be put in jail for thinking of why it we aren't free, killed for even thinking about doing something against the government. Also, the reason we shouldn't have a V for Vendetta society is because that is full of an oppressive corrupt government. It is christian based. But the worst part is that it does genetic testing on it citizens killed thousands of them for no particular reason other than to keep them afraid. Even if you are a law abiding citizen they will randomly choose you and kill you for no other reason than you were unlucky. That is why these societies suck, because even if you follow the laws(or perceived laws) you will be killed. They are insane

Uhm, you could have at least justified you ill-tempered words, rather than just say "oh you're wrong... *abuse*".
A) Justification is a hollow exercise, because obviously I think my words were justified but that would not necessarily convince you.

B) Explanation of why I thought your argument was annoyingly pointless is another thing altogether, though. In fact, I already did explain my problem with your remarks, in detail, in the posts in which I also belittled them. I do not intend to repeat those critiques. The thread is only 4 pages long. Far too short for points to be getting lost in the mix.

I did say it. IN THE THREAD.

I did explain it. IN THE THREAD.

I did explain why your arguments are not working as refutations of my argument. IN THE THREAD.
I have read the post several times now, and unsurprisingly my original interpretation of what you said still stands. In your first response, you said, "What do you disagree with? That the regimes are unsustainable and tend to fall due to the failure of their own internal structures? No, apparently you don't disagree with that." I explained that was not what I disagreed with, or at least what I wasn't talking about in my post, but "the urge to freedom being strong and universal and leaders being forced to use fearmongering." Apparently that was a misinterpretation of what you said, despite being almost verbatim from your post.
I refuse to restate the thread for you. It's not long enough to warrant that.

You've replied three times now to say not only do I not disagree with you, but that I am wrong. I don't believe you're so busy that you can't give a sentence or two explaining how you did not mean the urge to freedom was strong and universal or how my arguments against that were wrong.

EDIT: I just re-read it a fifth time and it all makes sense now. Never mind. :) Not really, sorry.

Except that the urge to freedom DOES trump totalitarianism, eventually, every time. There is a strong urge for security, but the desire not to be interfered with on a personal level is even stronger. Human history proves this. It is the very thing that causes people to think that totalitarian regimes are oppressive. It is not an idea that philosophers impose based on theory. It is an observation of the people who live within such regimes based on how difficult they find it to do that.

You have it wrong. There has never been freedom. If it hasn't been controlled by the state it has been controlled by religion, or simply a group of vigilantes. When society breaks down and there are no laws you are not free. Laws that keep you free aren't actually making you free. If you were made free then there wouldn't have to be laws to make you free. You would just be free. Society breaking down leads to groups of people separating from each other and enforcing their own will on others using power. It becomes hundreds of separate little principalities. No one has ever been free, no one ever will. Right now there are laws stopping us from urinating where we choose, doing drugs, driving fast. These are all for other peoples safy, but they still restrict our freedom. In the end we will never, and have never been free.

A) Justification is a hollow exercise, because obviously I think my words were justified but that would not necessarily convince you.

In other words you're plugging your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALA"?

B) Explanation of why I thought your argument was annoyingly pointless is another thing altogether, though. In fact, I already did explain my problem with your remarks, in detail, in the posts in which I also belittled them. I do not intend to repeat those critiques. The thread is only 4 pages long. Far too short for points to be getting lost in the mix.

Except you didn't, to any satisfactory degree. Now if all you have to offer is moods and tantrums, devoid of any substantive content in the way of the topic, then I will recommend you to a mod.

EDIT: So, s'il vous plait, enlighten me, what is so wrong about my point?

What do you mean "in what terms"?

Well, 'human history proves this' didn't quite satisfy my hunger for proof, so I wanted some clarification (so I could come up with a counter argument instead of 'no it doesn't)

Just because the pendulum swings, it does not mean that what I say is not true. People adjust their expectations to match circumstances, but everyone has a limit to what they will tolerate, including from those who purport to rule. The same people who, when they feel threatened, will seek a "strongman" to protect them, will come to see that strongman as the main threat, once they no longer fear the original perceived threat as much. Then the strongman's days will be numbered, as soon as the people he thinks he controls feel strongly enough that they don't need him anymore.

Oh indeed I agree, but because the pendulum swings, what authority does anyone have to say 'the natural place for the pendulum is x"? Human beings change their priorities. But you don't have the luxury of assessing those priorities until your basic survival and security is assured.


I see a gulph of semantics separating our arguments. Do I really feel like trying to sort out another briar-patch of terms and jargon today?
I suspected that too, hence the questions.... BTW, it's "gulf" unless you are over 100 years old (not a good start!:tongue:)

In other words you're plugging your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALA"?
No, what I meant was that, unless you see the sense of my explanations (which I did actually post), no justification will be accepted by you, nor should it.

Except you didn't, to any satisfactory degree. Now if all you have to offer is moods and tantrums, devoid of any substantive content in the way of the topic, then I will recommend you to a mod.

EDIT: So, s'il vous plait, enlighten me, what is so wrong about my point?
Yeah, actually, I did, in my very first response to you. But go ahead, refer me to a mod. I'm done with paying attention to you on this. I've already given you more than I had originally planned. 'Bye.

People will give up freedom for order and stability. To make them give it up willingly you need to distract them. It is for the common good, it is only a temporary/emergency measure due some misfortune that we probably had a hand in creating in the first place. You don't really even need a scapegoat or the scapegoat can be an intangible group or quality. Family Values who in there right mind would be want to be against the family.

First, liberal regimes tend to fall by turning into authoritarian regimes. The freedom itself doesn't cause the fall, its the collapse of government over its own weight. Second, the reason Nazis took control is that the Communists were conveniently arrested for burning down the senate house.

For me, the best reason for freedom is that it enables virtue. Virtue is only enabled through, and minus choice there is no virtue. Another good reason is that it enables greatness for the individual's soul, for the collective has no soul

You have it wrong. There has never been freedom. If it hasn't been controlled by the state it has been controlled by religion, or simply a group of vigilantes. When society breaks down and there are no laws you are not free. Laws that keep you free aren't actually making you free. If you were made free then there wouldn't have to be laws to make you free. You would just be free. Society breaking down leads to groups of people separating from each other and enforcing their own will on others using power. It becomes hundreds of separate little principalities. No one has ever been free, no one ever will. Right now there are laws stopping us from urinating where we choose, doing drugs, driving fast. These are all for other peoples safy, but they still restrict our freedom. In the end we will never, and have never been free.

Well said.

There must be some level of order to have a society. There is also an upper limit on control. 1984 would be difficult if not impossible. As dictator what do you care if people are having sex? So long as my paycheck keeps coming in I am fine with that. You can try to legislate morality but it is extremely difficult to enforce. One could say yes drugs are illegal in the USA but not extremely difficult to get. So in a sense if you are discreet enough you have the freedom to do pretty much anything.

Well, 'human history proves this' didn't quite satisfy my hunger for proof, so I wanted some clarification (so I could come up with a counter argument instead of 'no it doesn't)
Oh. Well, in my head, I was looking at a sort of Whole Earth Topographical Time-map o' Humanity, in which are laid out the large scale trends of the rise and fall of various kinds of regimes in different places (more or less simultaneously during each period of time; it's a very bumpy map) highlighted by spikes in different directions, in different places, at different times, and not forgetting the sub-variations within more stable meta-trend-lines (like the various spikes of ultra-control within the already generally more authoritarian pattern of Chinese history, for instance).

And looking over that Big Picture, what I see as a constant -- to varying degrees under varying circumstances and to varying proportions based on the afore-mentioned meta-trend-lines -- is the tendency of human beings to settle towards a level of stability that will allow the individual freedom to pursue individual interests on an individual level and to do so at will, as much as practical circumstances will allow at any given moment.

People tend not to care so much how they get to that stability, nor what form of system works best for them to maintain it, and if pressured sufficiently, they will replace an old system with a new one, if they think the old system has broken down and that the new system will fix the problem. But if the new system fails to do that, they will not stick with it. Not even if they are met with force. Either by counter-force or by indirect undermining or by avoidance, they will get out from under a system that does not work for them.

Oh indeed I agree, but because the pendulum swings, what authority does anyone have to say 'the natural place for the pendulum is x"? Human beings change their priorities. But you don't have the luxury of assessing those priorities until your basic survival and security is assured.
Ask a physicist about what the stable point in a dynamic system is.

I suspected that too, hence the questions.... BTW, it's "gulf" unless you are over 100 years old (not a good start!:tongue:)
Thanks. Where the hell did that "ph" come from? I need more coffee.

You have it wrong. There has never been freedom. If it hasn't been controlled by the state it has been controlled by religion, or simply a group of vigilantes. When society breaks down and there are no laws you are not free. Laws that keep you free aren't actually making you free. If you were made free then there wouldn't have to be laws to make you free. You would just be free. Society breaking down leads to groups of people separating from each other and enforcing their own will on others using power. It becomes hundreds of separate little principalities. No one has ever been free, no one ever will. Right now there are laws stopping us from urinating where we choose, doing drugs, driving fast. These are all for other peoples safy, but they still restrict our freedom. In the end we will never, and have never been free.
A) Law =/= totalitarianism.

B) Rule of law =/= lack of freedom.

C) Freedom =/= anarchy (in the sense of lawlessness or lack of social organization).

THEREFORE. the choice is NOT between totalitarianism (which is what I have been talking about) and a breakdown of society.

In 1984 the state rules through dogma, lies and manipulation. It seems so.. lazy.

People will give up freedom for order and stability. To make them give it up willingly you need to distract them. It is for the common good, it is only a temporary/emergency measure due some misfortune that we probably had a hand in creating in the first place. You don't really even need a scapegoat or the scapegoat can be an intangible group or quality. Family Values who in there right mind would be want to be against the family.
*raises hand* Every time some US politician mentions "family values," my brain automatically inserts "Manson" in front of the "family."

Just like every time one of them says "Homeland," I hear "Fatherland."

Totalitarianism is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life.

I think this is the other myth that you regulate everything?

Just as freedom is a myth so is total control. The "control" just drives what you seek to control under ground for lack of a better word. This allows the criminal element to take over.

Totalitarianism is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life.

I think this is the other myth that you regulate everything?

Just as freedom is a myth so is total control. The "control" just drives what you seek to control under ground for lack of a better word. This allows the criminal element to take over.
DeNiro voice: "Are you talkin' to me?"

....snip...
Well, that's a perspective on human history, but I wouldn't say that perspective is proof of anything. From a purely analytical perspective I don't see how you can really extricate all those 'meta trends' and significant events like famines and plagues and come to a 'this is human behaviour' conclusion. It's too complex imo.

Ask a physicist about what the stable point in a dynamic system is.
Just because human behaviour changes and a pendulum swings, doesn't mean human behaviour has anything to do with the laws of physics.

Thanks. Where the hell did that "ph" come from? I need more coffee.

I think you mean ""cophee":D

*raises hand* Every time some US politician mentions "family values," my brain automatically inserts "Manson" in front of the "family."

Just like every time one of them says "Homeland," I hear "Fatherland."

Well said.


First all if you want to talk about family values point one out to me. Dysfunctional Family Values.

Also titles like intelligence czar and director of homeland security

Make no mistake it is a machine. Just painted more brightly.

Well, that's a perspective on human history, but I wouldn't say that perspective is proof of anything. From a purely analytical perspective I don't see how you can really extricate all those 'meta trends' and significant events like famines and plagues and come to a 'this is human behaviour' conclusion. It's too complex imo.
I disagree. I think that if you look at as much data as you can muster, and you do find a repeating pattern within it, then that pattern is significant.

Is it complex? Yes. Does it require a lot of effort and mental discipline to sort through it and stay as objective as possible? Yes. Does it take a long time to construct such a perspective in a way that it can be used for anything? Yes, I've been paying attention to history for over 35 years. But none of that makes it not do-able.

Just because human behaviour changes and a pendulum swings, doesn't mean human behaviour has anything to do with the laws of physics.
I was using it as a simile, in that there are stable points within dynamic systems, and I am calling human behavior a dynamic system.

I think you mean ""cophee":D
Or "cophphee."

And the fact that I had to edit this post twice just to fix the quotes shows that I do need some juice. And some lunch, too.

'Later -- and happy new year, if I dont get on again before then. :D

I disagree. I think that if you look at as much data as you can muster, and you do find a repeating pattern within it, then that pattern is significant.

Is it complex? Yes. Does it require a lot of effort and mental discipline to sort through it and stay as objective as possible? Yes. Does it take a long time to construct such a perspective in a way that it can be used for anything? Yes, I've been paying attention to history for over 35 years. But none of that makes it not do-able.


Well, I would love to see a thesis then! Otherwise I can't really say one way or the other if I agree with your conclusions. Or I can get back to you in 35 years :p

I was using it as a simile, in that there are stable points within dynamic systems, and I am calling human behavior a dynamic system.
That much was obvious, but a simile is not something you can base an argument on. Saying that human behaviour is a dynamic system is an assertion rather than an argument.... One that fits your hypothesis of there being a stable point.

Dynamic systems can be rather complex beasts (degrees of freedom in phase space, strange attractors, even chaotic systems) so unless we delve into physics or really stretch the simile I'm not sure we can use it to shed much light.


Or "cophphee."

And the fact that I had to edit this post twice just to fix the quotes shows that I do need some juice. And some lunch, too.

'Later -- and happy new year, if I dont get on again before then. :D

and to you and yours! Enjoy!

I live near a PayLess Shoes store. They have regular two-for-one sales.

Or you could buy a really fancy shoe that acts like Thor's Hammer.

Without freedom, I probably wouldn't have met GoG, which is frankly, the best thing that's happened in my life so far, besides the birth of my girls. For that alone, I'd reject any further dampening of my civil liberties thanks.

Brave New World would be a better starting point for this.

I still have no idea why they call Brave New World a dystopia, it's got a fucking opt-out system.

I have to admit that I haven't read 1984 in full, and the only real dystopian movie I have seen is V for Vendetta, so my perceptions may not be 100%.

I was thinking about it the other day, and what really makes the society of 1984 or V for Vendetta really bad? Alright; I'll admit that there is some unnecessary death, but those are usually retained for those who question the governing authority, which could be argued as understandable. With that, I was thinking what makes them really bad then? If you are an honest citizen who doesn't question the government, then life shouldn't be too bad; since you only lost your freedom but not much else.

So, NSG, why is freedom so important? How would you justify the merits of freedom to someone who would take it away from you? Why shouldn't we have a 1984 society or a V for Vendetta society?

Well u see many leaders tend to suck. If there is no freedom, theres a great risk of getting 1 really bad and noone can do anything about it.

I still have no idea why they call Brave New World a dystopia, it's got a fucking opt-out system.

What?

Because life is power.

Not without freedom.

What?

The deuteragonist is given the option to move to an island with books and stuff if he so desires, and, IIRC, it's implied he takes the option. It's not really a dystopia if you're free to leave.

The deuteragonist is given the option to move to an island with books and stuff if he so desires, and, IIRC, it's implied he takes the option. It's not really a dystopia if you're free to leave.

Considering he was abnormal from the start and that was the reason he was able to even CONTEMPLATE the choice, yeah it's still a dystopia.

Not everyone was able to make that choice, because the government prevented them from being able to. They were sending him off like that just to get rid of the annoyance.

Because without freedom of choice we could be forced to watch Natalie Portman 'acting'.

Wow. Burn.

Well, I would love to see a thesis then! Otherwise I can't really say one way or the other if I agree with your conclusions. Or I can get back to you in 35 years :p


That much was obvious, but a simile is not something you can base an argument on. Saying that human behaviour is a dynamic system is an assertion rather than an argument.... One that fits your hypothesis of there being a stable point.
You pretty much already saw my thesis, or as close to one as I'll ever get. My problem is that these things (the things I said) seem so obvious to me that I have a hard time explaining them in the way you seem to be expecting. It would be like you saying you look forward to my thesis on how the peanut butter and jelly sandwich is a relatively simple and tasty snack. Who doesn't know that, or who can't figure that out for themselves?

But I can wait 35 years for you to catch up. No problem. :p

Dynamic systems can be rather complex beasts (degrees of freedom in phase space, strange attractors, even chaotic systems) so unless we delve into physics or really stretch the simile I'm not sure we can use it to shed much light.
Although I was using the physics reference as a simile, if you did refer to a physicist to explain stability with dynamic systems (which a physicist would be better equipped to explain coherently than I can), you would have a good working model for what I mean about human behavior patterns over large periods of time.

and to you and yours! Enjoy!
:D Bueno. (and I am only slightly buzzed. Finished an ass-kicking cocktail and then the restaurant comped us a bottle of champagne because we're regulars. Typing has become a challenge tonight. :D)

I have to admit that I haven't read 1984 in full, and the only real dystopian movie I have seen is V for Vendetta, so my perceptions may not be 100%.

I was thinking about it the other day, and what really makes the society of 1984 or V for Vendetta really bad? Alright; I'll admit that there is some unnecessary death, but those are usually retained for those who question the governing authority, which could be argued as understandable. With that, I was thinking what makes them really bad then? If you are an honest citizen who doesn't question the government, then life shouldn't be too bad; since you only lost your freedom but not much else.

So, NSG, why is freedom so important? How would you justify the merits of freedom to someone who would take it away from you? Why shouldn't we have a 1984 society or a V for Vendetta society?



Because I don't like other people telling me what to do. Many people don't.

Considering he was abnormal from the start and that was the reason he was able to even CONTEMPLATE the choice, yeah it's still a dystopia.

Not everyone was able to make that choice, because the government prevented them from being able to. They were sending him off like that just to get rid of the annoyance.

I must be misremembering it, because I don't recall him being remotely abnormal at all.