@Callo,
Callo;97478 wrote:Anyway, anyhow lets be serious. What BrighNoon said is a well accepted notion that glorifies freedom over everything. That indeed is a core problem.
I disagree. Freedom is only a problem for those who like to dominate other people for the sake of dominating them, and for those who enjoy being dominated. So, putting those creatures aside, human beings want freedom.
Quote:As Mill once wrote: I cannot trade happiness for freedom - because in the end I will end up with happiness disappearing. The same goes for freedom in our case - I mean maybe we did buy (and very well paid) the idea of freedom as something extremely important, for some even more important than the society, which is the fundamental thing for freedom to exist (by the way). At some point freedom is indeed useless - If I offer an underpaid worker in 3rd country to have a freedom of speech he will take my offer as an insult. He needs food - he cannot use his freedom of speech.
Again, tastes vary I suppose, but I for one would rather be a poor freeman than a pampered slave. It makes no differnce to me if someone uses their freedom; the point is that they are able to use it if they choose.
Quote:Inter arma enim silent leges - you see, when you read USA Constitution you should not automatically apply it to war. Freedom in the time of total war (that is the condition when draft is good -see the definition of good in my previous reply) is utterly useless.
Ah yes, that attitude worked out wonderfully for the Romans huh? Their republic never fell to a dictator...:whistling: Again, what is the point of fighting a total war to avoid conquest and subjugation by a foreign power if that requires the sacrafice of everything of value in the society? If in order to defeat fascism in the Second World War the U.S. had had to become exactly like NAZI Germany, why not just invite them in and surrender? Is there a difference between oppression by foreigners and oppression by one's own government? No. I say again, if society can only survive by depriving its members of freedom, then let it perish. I would rather have anarchy than totalitarianism.
Quote:Rousseau goes even further. He says that in time of war the countries that are in war both returns into state of nature - and that, my friend, is a state where you have total freedom but you have no rights - meaning your freedom is merely a fiction - it can be taken away from you by someone more powerful. This is a time when all laws are silenced. Because society's only concern is its own survival. By doing so it is temporarily cancelling the individual rights in the name of these same rights being secured again in the future.
When in history have 'emergency powers' ever been relinquished? You talk about the silly illusions held by Americans or by libertarians...this idea of depriving the people of rights so that those rights can be saved for the future is an illusion.
Quote:Let's think for a moment about Nazism. You said that a society that forces you to defend it, is bad and should have not survived. I presume that you do not know much about the history of southern Europe during WW2. In that time there was a popular saying used - going something like this ?if you are not with us, you are against us? - off course being shot on sight if you were against. That is some sort of very aggressive and cruel form of military draft. But society/countries needed new recruits in order to fight the very real threat - the Nazi Germany.
If such drafts would not be so cruel - our today could be much different. They temporarily terminated some of the rights just so we can enjoy them today. Or to put it directly: they terminated freedom for a brief moment so the idea of freedom would not be erased entirely. Are you still certain that you rather see a society that forces you to "work for your own future good" dissolve than to survive?
Yes. In case you haven't noticed, individual freedom has been on a nosedive since just about the time your talking about. The role of the state has been steadily growing since the New-Deal/War-time collectivist policies of the 30s and 40s.
Do you actually believe that Germany could have defeated the U.S. had the U.S. not taken the war to Europe first? We in this nation are in a very privilaged position; we have several thousand miles of deep, salt water on either side, we are continental, we can easily produce all of our own food, and we are all armed to the teeth. Since at least the War of 1812 there has been no chance, zero, of the U.S. actually being conquered by a foreign power. And, as long as the U.S. remains united, there never will be. There is however a long-standing and rapidly escalating risk that we will become hopelessly oppressed from within.
