Why is freedom such a hard sell?

I don't claim to have all the answers, merely a start. I don't know the perfect path to maintaining democracy, but I know that a workers' state is a basic necessity for it.

Wealth is power. The government is merely a special organization of force, but wealth is what drives it.

 

Eng102 dealt with that, but that's post secondary

 

Class warfare is definitely real. Laws are selectively applied that favor people with more property/credentials than others, which allows them to suck more money out of the consumer. The destruction of the unions (but not the professional organizations), and zoning laws are just a few examples of how producers and professionals use their power to corrupt government and screw the poor.

We can do voting tests that are administered fairly. This is not an impossible task, and I'm not sure why people keeping using this line of reasoning.

People can't be forced to learn and apply what they don't care about, which is why this is the wrong approach. If people want to vote, they need to first have a desire and then get a clue.

 

The term "Liberal" in of itself is a tough one because the modern usage the term is kind of opposite to "Classical Liberalism".

Modern Liberals (as in Dems) are big proponents of "Utilitarianism" - Justification for law on the basis of what will increase happiness for the collective with no regard for individual rights and freedoms.

Republicans use this justification for law quite often as well when it suits their purpose.

I dislike this justification for law as it disregards individual rights and freedoms but also; who gets to decide what will increase happiness for everyone. One man's poison is another mans pleasure.

The main reason though is that fallacious utilitarianism is very insidious and a easily used as a tool for evil.

Such justifications are very common these days (in complete violation of the principles on which this nation was founded).

For example: "if it saves one life"/ Harm reduction as justification for law.

On the surface it sounds very appealing. Who does not want to save one life ?

Dig deeper and this justification is beyond retarded. If this was was a valid justification for law then we should ban skiing tomorrow as would this not save one life ? How about boating - that's really dangerous, one could drown. Driving a car ? Banned.

In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one could fall and break neck.

The term "Fallacious" refers to the fact that this in fact is not even a good utilitarian justification.

 

You seem to be having trouble not building a massive stawman. I have no idea what a teacher is going to say but what you are suggesting is about the last thing I would expect.

Did you have any thoughts of your own as to why we do not teach kids the basics of Philosophy ?

 

Individual liberty means you have to work, you reap the rewards and penalties of your success and failure. It takes guts and a spine. That's why certain people love freedom, and others are "progressives".

 

It is taught to a certain extent. In English composition classes, you have to use the basic building blocks of a logical argument in order to write something that is intelligible.

The biggest reason why coherent logical argumentation is not stressed in high school is because they're still kids, and you could end up arguing about stupid stuff all day, rather than teaching them about the spanish american war. Aristotle basically invented syllogistic logic in order for the Greeks to win arguments. If you're a high school maths teacher, you don't want to waste your time debating on whether or not math should be studied since numbers do not exist.

 

The answer is the rejection of government in all its forms. The answer is anarchy. When the people turn their back on government and refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy, then it ceases to have the power to enslave the people. That puts the fate of the wealthy minority at the discretion of the overwhelming majority.

 

So we should not teach kids how to make a valid argument so that the kids do not argue with teachers. That is Laugh out Loud Funny.

How about Logical fallacy ? Should we not teach that either because the kids would catch it when teachers, politicians, and their parents made fallacious arguments ?

Math is not a debating class ... Holy bad argument Batman. Looks like you could have used some schooling in fallacy and how to construct a valid argument.

 

There is no law that keeps a teacher from teaching students how to construct a logical argument, or spot ones that are not. It's just not really high up on the list of priorities, considering that grammar does much the same thing.

It's not that it shouldn't be taught, but rather a question of priorities, and whether it is important enough. So far, not many have complained about it, so it's not an issue.

Is it time to play the jeopardy music so you can find the flaw in my previous post?

 

The "basics" of Philosophy, along with the basics of civics referred to earlier should be "Mandatory" so that as adults they will be able to cast an intelligent vote.

And No ... Grammar does not even come close to teaching the basics of Philosophy.

It is an absurd idea that teaching Kids how to think for themselves is not a priority.

How on earth is a person able to wade through the cacophony of fallacy and horribly bad arguments coming from politicians and the media on a daily basis if they do not have the basic tools or even know what a fallacy is ?

How do you expect people to cast an informed vote when they do not know the basics of Civics ? ( Basic principles on which this nation was founded - individual rights and freedoms - Authority of Gov't comes from "We the People"/Social contract and so on)

I do not know that you made any "logical flaws" this time. Your post just contained factual errors (Grammar teaches Philosophy) and we differ greatly on the priority of teaching kids to think for themselves and the value of having coherent and intelligent voters.

 

Exactly. I can't think of a class as useful as philosophy/logic, aside from maybe a math class. A good philosophy class and curriculum will teach you the why and show you the how of things. People don't know how to break ideas down into premises and can't get the deeper level of understanding that is required to understand complex political issues.

We agree on voting tests. Let's make them ubiquitous and make them hard. The deleterious effects of our disastrous media could be greatly mitigated if political news was in depth. People keep blaming the media or providing stupid content devoid of context...Well, that is because the people can't understand complex material and don't know what's happening. The media appeals to retarded people, which causes political issues to be framed in horribly stupid fashion, ultimately resulting in a broken political system.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can't follow a 3 hour lecture describing the debate between Austrian and Keynesian theories of inflation, at the very least, then you have no business engaging in politics at the national level.

 

I have kind of backtracked a bit on tests for everyone but for sure education in the aforementioned should be mandatory and the kid of course will be tested. I think we could also have a mandatory course that each citizen has to take in order to vote and we should force the networks to spend some time prior to an major election reviewing that education.

I completely agree with you that lack of such education is why our system is so broken. More on this will follow.

I really do not think the test has to be that hard.

For example: What are the two main principles our forefathers sacrificed their lives for as per the Declaration of Independence ?

1) Individual rights and freedoms are "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

This will be a brief summary but "What does this Mean" ?

First ... what is the legitimate purview of Gov't. I will let Jefferson do the talking:

That is friggen it with one exception. Protection from harm from others. The Gov't is not to mess with individual rights and freedoms.

50+ 1 does not (at least not according to the above principle) give some group power to mess with individual rights and freedoms be it the Feds, the State, and certainly not city council ! If this were the case than the above principle would be pointless. Allowing such a thing was called ..

"Tyranny of the Majority".

The Gov't can appeal to "we the people" to restrict liberty but this requires a change the "Social Contract" (construct which gives Gov't its authority).

The bar for such a change is not "50+1" The bar is an "overwhelming majority". The founders did not give an exact number but 75-80% would be reasonable.

The idea is that if an action is so offensive to "we the people" that we will allow Gov't more power that obviously the majority of people would be in agreement. Who agrees with beastiality for example.

A great example is Pot vs Heroin. Good luck getting an "overwhelming Majority" to agree to banning pot.

Heroin/ Meth and so on ? No problem. A vast majority of people think this stuff is way too dangerous.

It quickly becomes clear how far we have moved down the slippery slope away from the basic principles on which our nation was founded.

The founders limited the power of Gov't, the Gov't has spent 200 years trying to get that power back and they have succeeded.

2) The legitimate authority of Gov't comes from "We the People" as opposed to "Divine Right"/God as was the case in generations prior to the founders.

We have supreme court Justices that do not understand these basic principles - either that or they ignore them.

Making laws on the basis of religious belief is "SPECIFICALLY" what the founders were trying to avoid.

Could Adams have possibly put it more clearly ? Founded on the natural authority of the people alone with no pretense of miracle or mystery.

What part of "Religious belief is not to be forced on people through Law" do these folks not understand ?

Need more convincing on what the founders thought of theocracy (or anything resembling mixture of Church and State) ?

The religious right will probably not like it very much but... (to friggen bad) Are we not to teach the main principles on which this nation was founded because the religious right does not like it ?

There ... a basic summary of the 2 founding principles of our nation in one post. God forbid we had an entire semester !

The vast majority of the raging masses have absolutely no clue that what these principles are, and even fewer know what they mean.

 

Freedom isn't a hard sell. Laissez-Faire economics, which in my opinion is one of the most sociopathic political ideologies there ever was - second only to Communism in its disregard for human life and dignity - is a tough sell. Laissez-Faire economic theory has been what the Republicans have been trying to sell America since around the 1980s. Thankfully, most Americans aren't sociopaths and don't worship Ayn Rand.

With freedom comes responsibility - regulated capitalism ensures that corporations act responsibly, and the laws governing our land overall ensure our citizens act responsibly. 1780s style "freedom" - an utterly unregulated, have and have-not approach, worked when America was a small, agrarian nation. As the Gilded Age proved, it doesn't work in a post-Industrial era.

 

I was thinking of a two-part test. One part would be more of a reasoning test like the SAT verbal section (maybe the LSAT logical reasoning section) and require very little special knowledge. Obviously, people would have the opportunity to practice, but the idea is to eliminate those we normally wouldn't consider eligible for college education, at least not at the national level--as I mentioned in the other thread, the system would have three tiers.

The second part of the test would be knowledge-based, like you suggested, and include quite a few things. People would need to understand things like inflation, foreign trade, some comparative politics, and knowledge of the founding documents, among others.Taking the test and passing would be considered an important achievement and achieving the highest tier would come with great esteem. These are the people who would vote at the presidential and senatorial level.

Ample prep materials would be made freely available.

Those over the age of 45 would be grandfathered in, but people under that would need to take the test.

Can you imagine how much better the country would be if we could do that?

 

Freedom isn't free and there are some like liberals who want free stuff and are willing to give up personal freedoms for free stuff.

That's the way it is.

Look at Bernie Sanders supporters, young stupid people who want a free college education.

 

So why is a "free" (tax supported) college education out of the question, but a free K-12 education a given?

 

Education leads to freedom though. no?

 

Well one would think so but in reality being a person who knows way too much I envy those who are blissfully happy in their ignorance.

AA

 

Yeah, but they don't teach that (*)(*)(*)(*) in school.

 

The pull toward utilitarianism is strong. Freedom results in dire consequences a lot of the time, that is the consequence of freedom. For instance, crime will be higher if government has to prove you are guilty rather than the other way around. People will die. Our freedom from false imprisonment is paid for with their lives.

This is all good and well when applied to something like the justice system, where freedom is embraced by more or less everyone, but it becomes more complicated with fringe issues:

1. Drug use: drugs kill a lot of people - users. They also correlate with crime in other areas: thefts, assaults, etc. The first half of this is pretty easy to respond to: the state should not be protecting people from themselves, but when an action correlates collectively (but not necessarily individually) with crime, it's very difficult to argue that the individual should not be coerced along with the group, for the good of society.

2. Firearms: the same applies here. A lot of people kill themselves with guns, that this is not a cause for government coercion is fairly obvious to most (although less than drug use, due to politics), but a 8,300 kill other people in the US each year. It's an uphill battle to convince people that the government shouldn't f*** over all (incl. those we know to be law abiding) to reach that collective.

[hr][/hr]

As you can see, most of the issues surrounding freedom concern group dynamics. Picture it this way: if you only go after those individuals you know to be guilty, you will miss a lot of those who are actually guilty. Therefore, there's a tendency to coerce the innocent to net a larger catch of the guilty, who would evade capture if we respected the individual.

In short: freedom kills innocents, tyranny only places them in chains. Most will pick the latter, freedom is not a valued commodity in the laity.

 

Absolutely true, it's an ideal to work toward. See my post right above this one for the reasons why liberty is not practical in society.

 

The thing is even knowing now I would still chose to know.

AA

 

Ah, sorry. I should've known better than to use that term. Here in Europistan, "liberal" generally refers to classical liberalism, as well as derived currents like ordoliberalism (which isn't really a thing outside Germany and to an extent its cultural relatives). I was using the term in that sense (individualist capitalism, basically).