Why is freedom such a hard sell?

Love is not a choice, so will has almost nothing to do with it.

 

The state is a special organization of force for the benefit of a ruling class. The state is driven by the contradiction between the ruling class and the ruled classes. The majority working class must become the ruling class.

The primitive state was the slave state, which formed out of economic relations between what had once been the powerful chief and had then become the king and that king's subjects. As the kings expanded their domain and economic activity became based on managing large tracts of land to be tended by farmers, they broke up their domains into fiefdoms and feudalism was born, with an aristocratic ruling class. As technology progressed, industry was born and the owners of this industry desired power, so the aristocracy was either overthrown violently or legislated out of prominence by the rise of constitutions.

You can see, in that brief history, how the nature of the state is defined by class relations and economics.

That's basically a brief summary of Lenin's State and Revolution. The man himself makes the case better than I ever could.

- - - Updated - - -

The rule of the wealthy minority over the very workers that give them their wealth. When the factory owner uses his power to collaborate to drive wages down and hours up, all while making a killing off of merely owning equipment rather than working himself.

 

Fortunately, you can always quit.

 

We can't afford to quit.

 

That is irrelevant. So long as you are free to walk away, then you're free. It doesn't matter if you starve to death on your long walk. What matters is you're free to take it.

 

Two ideologies? Only two? Lmao. You're a bit short, and your argument makes no sense.

 

In actuality, the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-MSM Complex is very interested in freedom and free markets for itself, while taking your freedom away and restricting your markets simultaneously to fund itself. All the "failures of capitalism" claptrap are window dressing over a fervent Complex desire to maintain capitalism, just modified, mixed capitalism, fooling chumps into voting to steal more private sector money to pay for Complex pay bumps, contracts, grants, and the other parasitic feedings of the oatmeal bureau state.

 

Yes, some people are naturally dependent, others are naturally ambitious. Most fall somewhere in between. I'm sure the dependent person could argue that his freedom permits his dependence.

 

The only way the working class will ever become the ruling class is when government is abolished and the working class is free to rule over their own lives as they see fit.

So long as government exists, it will enslave the people.

 

Compromise.

 

No but government is not the only means to limit choice. An oppressive economic system such as an oligarchy will limit choice just as tightly as as government can.

 

It is one definition, the most sensible ever come up with. I did not even comment on some rights as relative to others other than to distinguish between individual rights and actions which affect others.

Nor did I comment on rights of the collective so I have no clue what you are talking about.

You are the one talking in abstractions ... yelping out platitudes with no substantiation or context.

 

I disagree. The ignorant raging masses have not generally been able to prevent tyranny - certainly not the "Tyranny of the Majority" in this country.

IMO - folks who want to vote should be required to have a minimum understanding of the basics of Philosophy (logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument) and the basics of Civics ( Legitimacy of Authority, Social Contract, and the basic principles on which this country was founded as per the Declaration of Independence)

 

Here in ma they banned plastic bags in cambridge. So you have to bring your own bags, you know those ones that breed bacteria and you have to waste water to wash. They offer you paper instead that you have to pay for...you know the same paper that back in the 70s they were chaining themselves to trees to in order to get you to use "plastic"

Here in MA fisherman are forced to stay home because the regulations here make it cost more to fish per day than they can actually make fishing much less make a profit. What does that mean? It means the fish you are eating will come from iceland. Govt out of control.
Freedom isnt a hard sell, its just that its a constant battle to fight the people who wish to take it from you.

 

Many people like knowing they can screw up and the govt will bail them out. It's not the govt's job of course to take care of a permanent underclass, but it insures those in power a loyal voting block. A win win for that scenario.

Fracking sad and pathetic but a win win.

 

1. "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"

2. There is no such thing as free will.

3. Since man is a social animal, there can be no real freedom (see also point 1).

4. If you want real freedom go to Alaska and live the life that Chris McCandless did. But, leave us alone and live your fantasies on your own, without imposing them on other people.

 

That's the false dichotomy. If humanity can't be trusted to make good choices, neither can government. A system put in place can improve decisions, but these systems always have a relatively short shelf life.

- - - Updated - - -

Translation: I want to control other people.

- - - Updated - - -

How is limiting actions that limit others actions still not supporting liberty?

 

And those costs go up because they have to hire more and more government enforcers , big brother gone mad .

 

A point of history: Democrats FILIBUSTERED the passage of the 19th amendment, but failed. Ultimately, twice as many democrats voted against it as republicans. Woodrow Wilson (D) staunchly and loudly opposed women's suffrage his entire political career, until the last minute in 1918, as a war measure, finally changed his position.

Today, everything democrats propose has a common attribute; growing dependence on government, and is designed that way. Today's democrats have found a formula to maintain a locked-in voter base; make them dependent, and keep them dependent. They sell this to their constituents under the guise of benevolent compassion (free diapers, MW hikes, etc) but the end result is permanent dependence and moving the brass-ring of independence as far away from the poor as possible.

 

Because they have their own ideologies that they wish to enforce upon others.

 

Sadly, we appear to live in a time and place in which, for all too many people, freedom is seen as the right to take and spend other people's money as you see fit...

 

That is not confused with freedom. It is just obvious self interest for the recipients. Why should they vote against their clear self interest?

 

Liberty is limited by the infringement of the liberty of others. Adding subjectivity is just an excuse to allow the existence of more control over others. Emotional gray areas are the playground of control grabs.

 

So if "individual liberty" is the only good option....and the only other option is "Governmental tyranny"?


we should be anarchists, right?

Because ANY hindrance on individual liberty by a Government...by the "black or white" argument of the OP....is "Governmental tyranny".

 

Of course it's clear self interest but if you listen to the people propounding that horse crap they think they have a God given right to other people's money.