• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Are we really free?

Forums New posts
Really a loaded question. In what context? Are we freer than just after the Revolutionary War. Depends on what color you are. Are we freer of rules & regulations governing our lives? Hell, no. On the other hand, we can travel around the globe to anywhere for a pittance compared to the cost in 1800. And the cost to communicate around the globe is approaching zero. Even in the middle of a recession the average person has more freedom in many ways, including a standard of living and sanitation, than Kings & Queens 200 years ago.

Compare to the fifties. Employment discrimination was rampant. Segregation was everywhere. You had no protections as a consumer. You could easily be socially ostracized for minor infractions. Divorce was difficult if not impossible. Being 'Gay' was bad. There was a draft in place. Society was much more rigid. You had fewer options.

On the other hand, you could fake a new identity more easily. Databases of your information were on paper. Building codes were far easier, and as the 'necessities' were less, life was easier. There weren't any seat belt laws. You could drive without insurance.

So, compared to 1800 we have a lot more bureaucracy and control, but our freedom to communicate and travel is vastly superior. Compared to the fifties we have a lot more personal freedom in some ways (Being 'Gay' is now 'good.'), but the tentacles of government control are pervasive in our lives. Our privacy is a lot less.

Of course, our ideas of freedom may be different. For some 'freedom' means a socialist society where everyone has complete financial equality, the same access to health care, education and retirement. No one is allowed to 'get rich' because that 'isn't fair.' Guns are outlawed because you might hurt yourself and you can expect to be taken care of from cradle to grave whether or not you contribute yourself.

To others 'freedom' means a government that leaves you alone to do what you want without interference, provides for the national defense, builds some roads, and encourages you to take care of yourself and make your own decisions.

We've basically got two camps now. One is the people who say, "Gimme, Gimme" and the others are saying, "Stay away from me." I don't know that this conundrum will be solved any time soon.
 
Do you see what I see?
Truth is an offense
You silence for your confidence

Do you hear what I hear?
Doors are slamming shut
Limit your imagination, keep you where they must

Do you feel what I feel?
Bittering distress
Who decides what you express?

Do you take what I take?
Endurance is the word
Moving back instead of forward seems to me absurd

Doesn't matter what you see?
Or into it what you read?
You can do it your own way
If it's done just how I say

Independence limited
Freedom of choice
Is made for you, my friend
Freedom of speech is words that they will bend
Freedom with their exception

Do you fear what I fear?
Living properly
Truths to you are lies to me

Do you choose what I choose?
More alternatives
Energy derives from both the plus and negative

Do you need what I need?
Boundaries overthrown
Look inside to each his own

Do you trust what I trust?
Me, myself, and I
Penetrate the smokescreen I see through the selfish lie

Dosn't matter what you see?
Or into it what you read?
You can do it your own way
If it's done just how I say

Independence limited
Freedom of choice
Is made for you, my friend
Freedom of speech is words that they will bend
Freedom with their exception

Do you know what I know?
Your money and your wealth
Your silence just to hear yourself

Do you want what I want?
Desire not a thing
I hunger after independence lengthen freedom's ring

Dosn't matter what you see?
Or into it what you read?
You can do it your own way
If it's done just how I say

Independence limited
Freedom of choice
Is made for you, my friend
Freedom of speech is words that they will bend
Freedom no longer frees you

Doesn't matter what you see
Or into it what you read
You can do it your own way
If it's done just how I say
 
You need to breath, drink, eat...
Maybe this sounds a bit lame but being free is impossible on this planet. Assuming we don't create our limited reality in our own heads ;-)

Asking if you're free "in this country" already implies you're not free.
The whole idea of a nation state is rediculous, it's a pure control mechanism.

But of course it all depends on your definition of freedom. Some folks think drinking a beer while watching football is the ultimate freedom.
 
Schuyler said:
Really a loaded question. In what context? Are we freer than just after the Revolutionary War. Depends on what color you are. Are we freer of rules & regulations governing our lives? Hell, no. On the other hand, we can travel around the globe to anywhere for a pittance compared to the cost in 1800. And the cost to communicate around the globe is approaching zero. Even in the middle of a recession the average person has more freedom in many ways, including a standard of living and sanitation, than Kings & Queens 200 years ago.

Compare to the fifties. Employment discrimination was rampant. Segregation was everywhere. You had no protections as a consumer. You could easily be socially ostracized for minor infractions. Divorce was difficult if not impossible. Being 'Gay' was bad. There was a draft in place. Society was much more rigid. You had fewer options.

On the other hand, you could fake a new identity more easily. Databases of your information were on paper. Building codes were far easier, and as the 'necessities' were less, life was easier. There weren't any seat belt laws. You could drive without insurance.

So, compared to 1800 we have a lot more bureaucracy and control, but our freedom to communicate and travel is vastly superior. Compared to the fifties we have a lot more personal freedom in some ways (Being 'Gay' is now 'good.'), but the tentacles of government control are pervasive in our lives. Our privacy is a lot less.

Of course, our ideas of freedom may be different. For some 'freedom' means a socialist society where everyone has complete financial equality, the same access to health care, education and retirement. No one is allowed to 'get rich' because that 'isn't fair.' Guns are outlawed because you might hurt yourself and you can expect to be taken care of from cradle to grave whether or not you contribute yourself.

To others 'freedom' means a government that leaves you alone to do what you want without interference, provides for the national defense, builds some roads, and encourages you to take care of yourself and make your own decisions.

We've basically got two camps now. One is the people who say, "Gimme, Gimme" and the others are saying, "Stay away from me." I don't know that this conundrum will be solved any time soon.
Click to expand...

It's all about perspective. In a way this country has more freedoms now than ever before, i agree.

The Gimme Gimme camp? The stay away from me camp? Imo the stay away from me camp, need the gimme gimme camp, and visa versa. It's just we have to find a happy medium. We all need each other in one way or another. We are NOT completly self reliant. If you think that, go live in the African bush for a few years, then tell me what camp you are in. Happy Hunting:)
Cheers John.
 
boulders and sticks said:
We are NOT completly self reliant. If you think that, go live in the African bush for a few years, then tell me what camp you are in. Happy Hunting:)
Click to expand...

Most people are not self-reliant because they choose not to be--not that they cannot if they put enough effort into it. It's just easier to depend on others and hope the system continues to provide. I suppose you could discuss it in terms of 'degrees of freedom' insofar as you're willing to put X amount of energy into protecting yourself. To some it might be having extra water in the closet; to others it might mean generating your own electricity, raising your own food and going off the grid entirely.

As far as happy hunting, I don't need to go to Africa. There are plenty of deer and elk in the woods. For that matter, there are cougars, coyotes, and bears, too. For people used to getting their hamburger already chopped up in cellophane, they might go "Ewwww!" to this and perhaps to those people your comment is directed. That's why I have 1,000 rounds of ammo stored away--just in case I have to do it myself. I don't want to, particularly. I hope I will a full box to my son. But the real point is that I pay for my meat. It's not given to me; it's an exchange of services, a trade. I'm not asking the person who sells me the meat to "Gimme!" anything.

I have nothing against an interdependent economy. Indeed, it keeps us safer. By contrasting the Gimmes versus the Leave me alone crowds I'm not talking about an interdependent economy where everyone contributes. I'm talking about a situation where some contribute and some don't.

The problem, as I see it, is government providing too much to the point that the Takers (vs. the Makers) start to believe that government taking care of their every need is their "right." Government creating dependency is never a good thing. I've done a lot of grants in my career. In fact, I never lost a grant, but you could say I was part of the problem and I certainly have seen what can happen. The issue is that government (at whatever level) will grant you funds to 'do something good' like, for a theoretical example, provide daycare to children. The grant is for a year and provides start-up funds for a community organization to get the ball rolling. This is going to be so great because these kids will finally get government subsidized daycare. How wonderful!

Then the grant runs out. So the local organization is faced with continuing the program on its own funds, terminating the program, or getting another grant. They can't terminate the program because, my goodness, think of the children and the outrage if they did. So they go get another grant. But how did the kids get along before that? What was first a luxury of subsidy has become a necessity.

One of the major ways you justify a grant is simply by defining an 'unserved' population. For example, libraries traditionally serve children. They have children's librarians, children's sections full of childen's books, children's story times, summer reading programs, etc. To get a grant you have to find a way of dividing this population and declaring, sometimes quite arbitrarily, one such sub-population as unserved. I know! We can say children in daycare are unserved because they might not be able to get to the library to take advantage of all these wonderful programs. Note the word "might" here. It's unproven, but we can certainly cite a bunch of statistics that look formidable and kind of slide right on by the "might" part. Then we'll get this grant, and everything will be wonderful.

And people wonder how government grows.
 
maninblack said:
Are we really free in this country? Or, is that merely an illusion? If not, how long can we last?
Click to expand...

Most human beings are not free, full stop - and it has nothing to do with governments or laws.

Those who are lucky enough to have jobs have to spend the greater part of their day doing what others want them to do, not what they want themselves. It is assumed that during this time their time actually "belongs" to their employer - even in the miserable past that was normally only the case for slaves. Why would we imagine for one instant that we are "free"?
 
The title begs the question: What is freedom? The answers to that question are quite subjective and based entirely upon one's individual perspective.

The idea of freedom, in my opinion, is one of chaos. Is there individual freedom in chaos?

So just based upon my concept of freedom; No, we are not free. We have mores, folkways, morals, laws and those that enforce those freedom limiting concepts.
 
Schuyler said:
Most people are not self-reliant because they choose not to be--not that they cannot if they put enough effort into it. It's just easier to depend on others and hope the system continues to provide. I suppose you could discuss it in terms of 'degrees of freedom' insofar as you're willing to put X amount of energy into protecting yourself. To some it might be having extra water in the closet; to others it might mean generating your own electricity, raising your own food and going off the grid entirely.

As far as happy hunting, I don't need to go to Africa. There are plenty of deer and elk in the woods. For that matter, there are cougars, coyotes, and bears, too. For people used to getting their hamburger already chopped up in cellophane, they might go "Ewwww!" to this and perhaps to those people your comment is directed. That's why I have 1,000 rounds of ammo stored away--just in case I have to do it myself. I don't want to, particularly. I hope I will a full box to my son. But the real point is that I pay for my meat. It's not given to me; it's an exchange of services, a trade. I'm not asking the person who sells me the meat to "Gimme!" anything.

I have nothing against an interdependent economy. Indeed, it keeps us safer. By contrasting the Gimmes versus the Leave me alone crowds I'm not talking about an interdependent economy where everyone contributes. I'm talking about a situation where some contribute and some don't.

The problem, as I see it, is government providing too much to the point that the Takers (vs. the Makers) start to believe that government taking care of their every need is their "right." Government creating dependency is never a good thing. I've done a lot of grants in my career. In fact, I never lost a grant, but you could say I was part of the problem and I certainly have seen what can happen. The issue is that government (at whatever level) will grant you funds to 'do something good' like, for a theoretical example, provide daycare to children. The grant is for a year and provides start-up funds for a community organization to get the ball rolling. This is going to be so great because these kids will finally get government subsidized daycare. How wonderful!

Then the grant runs out. So the local organization is faced with continuing the program on its own funds, terminating the program, or getting another grant. They can't terminate the program because, my goodness, think of the children and the outrage if they did. So they go get another grant. But how did the kids get along before that? What was first a luxury of subsidy has become a necessity.

One of the major ways you justify a grant is simply by defining an 'unserved' population. For example, libraries traditionally serve children. They have children's librarians, children's sections full of childen's books, children's story times, summer reading programs, etc. To get a grant you have to find a way of dividing this population and declaring, sometimes quite arbitrarily, one such sub-population as unserved. I know! We can say children in daycare are unserved because they might not be able to get to the library to take advantage of all these wonderful programs. Note the word "might" here. It's unproven, but we can certainly cite a bunch of statistics that look formidable and kind of slide right on by the "might" part. Then we'll get this grant, and everything will be wonderful.

And people wonder how government grows.
Click to expand...

Hi Schuyler
What is self reliance? We all depend on each other in some way or another. We depend on Government to build roads to provide safe clean food, to police us , to defend us, to do so many things in our lives that we don't even really think about. I agree with xylo that freedom is just a matter of perspective. At this time of your life you may not need too much help from the outside and that is great, more power to you. But not everyone is in your position. You have not lived in the shoes of everyone and can not know there own reality, only yours.
As far as what i was reffering too about going hunting in Africa, i was just using that as an example of someone that is truly free. (In my opinion) Free of any outside help, all on his own. Free to live and Die.
But at the same time you could say we are all free to do what ever we want, but just have to face the consequences.
Yes you are free to own Guns and large amounts of ammo, that makes no difference to me. In my perspective it is a little strange but that is your choice. But at the same time, I as a 43 year old guy am not free (Legally) to drink a beer in a public park. That also is a little strange? But of course this is just my perspective:)
Cheers John.
 
I just finished watching an excellent (and I might add, very depressing) documentary about a subject tangential to that of freedom, namely privacy. It's called "Erasing David" and absolutely everbody here should watch it if you get the chance.
 
CapnG said:
I just finished watching an excellent (and I might add, very depressing) documentary about a subject tangential to that of freedom, namely privacy. It's called "Erasing David" and absolutely everbody here should watch it if you get the chance.
Click to expand...


Thanks For the suggestion i'm going to check that out.
Cheers John.
 
David Biedny said:
A Metallica quote? I just threw up into my own mouth. I HATE those jackoffs. Nothing against you, methshin...

dB
Click to expand...
One of my favorite bands, good enough to get the attention of the late, great Michael Kamen. I don't really see why you'd hate them, they made some of the greatest metal albums ever made.
 
It's easy to hate a group that fights digital downloads in all their forms.

The American people are nothing more than house slaves. Sure we've got a lot of stuff, fancy clothes, a warm bed, nicer quarters, and we can always look out the special black window in our living rooms and see how bad the third-world field hands have it outside. But the truth is, the Masters have stopped putting as much coal in the fire on our side of the house, and they haven't replaced our worn out clothes in a while either.

And when the master wants to F#@& with someone, is he going to go out in the field and get himself dirty, or just walk to the other wing of the house? Of course he's going to screw us.

Here's the truly rough part. You don't like it? Try going to the field hands and saying "Let's kill the master!" They're already actively pursuing that goal, and would love to just burn the house down with us in it. We've stood by while the Master abused the field hands, and listened to him justify it while nodding our heads. Why shouldn't we? We've got warm beds and better food and clothes. Or at least we did..

I would say that America died not long after Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex. We just live in her rotting corpse and delude ourselves into thinking we're Americans.

Then again, perhaps the founding fathers figured it would come to this. The pursuit of happiness isn't a Happiness. The powers that be today see it more as the Pursuit of the Illusion of Happiness through Consumption.

-Mike
 
Back
Top