[infinkPoode]

I quit reading after your assertion about voting not being a sign of freedom.
I'm sorry, Pekka. That's ridiculous.
The fact is, the people who run your country have a lot to do with your quality of life.

[Kghyutgykim]

Sloww, then you didn't read why I said voting is no sign of freedom.

I challenged the idea of WHY voting would be a sign of freedom.

Give us an example why it is freedom? How does it make us more free? I said that the very act is setting a framework where you must either act in it or decide to not act in it. If you're going to call it ridiculous, you'll have to back it up by giving reasons why it is ridiculous.

[KongoSan]

I wasn't even arguing against voting. I'm arguing, that there is an illusion that the act of voting has something to do with freedom.

Like I said earlier and you confirmed, by voting or not voting you are already under the power of the system that forces you to make that decision.

And do note, that comparing to dictators is not a measurement for our freedoms. It is simply saying that there are some bastards ruling countries.

So what does voting have to do with freedom? Being a murdereous dictator rarely have been a favourite of the people so that they were voted in power to begin with. Meaning, that the process of voting does not exclude the possibility of military coup or other dictatorships in the future.

I'm saying that it is an illusion to think that the act of voting is related to freedom and it is a very powerful usage of... power to install that kind of thinking, because it means you have to have the power of setting that framework where you have to function to begin with, and if people think it has something to do with freedom, it is all the more powerful.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying voting is bad. I'm just saying that it's an act that doesn't have much to do with actual freedom. It's like saying that by voting in American Idol you are exercizing your freedom to choose your favourite. By doing that you are giving a point but it doesn't relate to freedom. And even though American Idol doesn't have the power to change your freedoms or your life, neither does the national leader. You're merely giving a point for ideas or an ideology that suits you the best, you aren't choosing. So you may either get it or not. And even then, how does that relate to freedom? It's just voting.

It's got little to do with actual freedom, just like torture has very little to do with truth and/or justice. If I consume products, I'm directly and immidiately voting for a product and therefore against the competitors. Is that freedom? No, because I can always turn back and at the same time buy the other products. Even even then, is it freedom? I still have limited amount of products I can choose from, or choose not to buy anything. So we get a bunch of products in front of us, how does me buying one of them relate to freedom?

[qd0vhq4f]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you just said.

Countries that don't have the right of voting in them are usually if not always even less free than our societies. I agree with this, I think it is a fact.

It's not exactly more free if you can't vote, I mean that the voting doesn't exist. As I pointed out earlier, it is already usage of power if you have installed a system of voting so you are forced to play that game even if you choose to be against it, you're still playing the game.

So if you don't have voting, would that be more free? Well, no. Not exactly.

But we could have forced freedom. I'm not saying it's a good idea, definitely not doable, but even the idea might be bad.

In that scenarion, we wouldn't have a leader, we would only have institutions of power that makes sure our freedoms are not limited. This doesn't mean abolishing police and the army, naturally these are needed. But the amount of power invested in politicians? Radically reduced. Bureaucracy down.

Even this isn't the sign of freedom IMO, but you have less constricting elements in the society. Now, we could pursue this even with dictatorship. A dictator who refuses to limit our freedoms and would on the contrary just be interested in freedom. Not just "a fair dictator" but a dictator who is only interested in demolishing the institutions along wiht preserving maximum amount of freedom for its citizens.

We'd more likely be more free then. However, of course it doesn't work like that, that's not the point.

The point is to separate the concept of freedom from the act of voting.

[Geetiill]

Let me know how that works out for you, Lori.
Vassal system vs. the ability to vote. Enjoy your serfhood.

[Preorbtat]

Originally posted by Pekka

We'd more likely be more free then. However, of course it doesn't work like that, that's not the point.

The point is to separate the concept of freedom from the act of voting. Voting is an expression of political power, however small. It reaffirms the notion that soveringty stems from the ruled, not from the ruler. IN that sense, it does grant the ruled greater political liberty.

Does political liberty equal freedom? From what you write, I assume you are a liberterian, and thus from you viewpoint, probably not, as political power can and usually is used to create systems, systems which invariably restrict individuals in some way, which is a limit on "freedom."

[bpejjssoe]

Pekka, could you condense your ideas a bit? White a post, but before you hit 'submit', clean it down to maybe 50 words.

Do this, and I will drink a beer in your honor.

[wrardymar]

Absolutely not! I'm giving alot here. A truly selfless act of consumtion.

[Jesslovers]

Originally posted by Kidicious


This assumes that our elected politicians are our rulers. It's much more complex than that. All sorts of individuals and groups have power to rule in our system. Your idea simplifies things too much. Everyone has power. Power to rule (as in to control the monopoly on political violence) is granted to those viewed as legitimate, and in a dmeocratic system, that legitimacy comes from the vote. Private interests may have significant power over individuals, but they do not rule.

[EvaQWmrm]

Well obviously you aren't free when you're part of a system or a larger group, Pekka.

A system is forever governed by rules, because otherwise the society that created it couldn't have existed in the first place.

When you have a society of 2 people, you don't need rules or systems, because you can just agree upon anything among the 2 of you.

3 people or more, and the society needs a 'social contract' and a system to enforce said contract.


Voting is just one of possible means to try and ensure that a system (namely it's chosen governors) remains loyal to the ideas of all its members. Agreeably, voting by itself is not enough, but it is a part of what allows you to be a member in a free society - even if you are yourself not totally free.

Think of Apolyton.
Even if you ignore the "evil undemocratic oppression" of moderators, you still have rules.
You have rules that tell you how and where to post. You have rules defining what your post will look like, what smilies it will contain, where it will appear, and how often can you post (30 seconds apart).

So are you not free?
Well, you're not totally free to do what ever you want.
But you're free within a framework.

[elektikakass]

Originally posted by Pekka
Siro, repeating definitions doesn't get you far this is the most unconstructive post you've made

[Creelaleps]

Originally posted by GePap


Everyone has power. Power to rule (as in to control the monopoly on political violence) is granted to those viewed as legitimate, and in a dmeocratic system, that legitimacy comes from the vote. Private interests may have significant power over individuals, but they do not rule. I'm talking about reality, not political idealism. I don't think we are on the same page here.

[BonjGopu]

The right to vote is an essential part of freedom in a structured society. You could, in theory, have a society with total freedom, but no right to vote. That system is called anarchy and doesn't work in practice.

But the right to vote is only a small part of what defines freedom, which some people tend to forget.

[SkHukV3N]

If you want people to fully read your posts, make them shorter

[Spongebob]

I read.

[PareKeect]

I know, just saying. If people don't read a post why even say anything.

[mikajuise]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm talking about reality, not political idealism. I don't think we are on the same page here. There is no objective "reality", certainly not when it comes to power. What power somoene else has over you is decided by you - each individual decides what they want, and assign power to others on that basis.

For example, someone resigned to die themselves can;t be made to do anything under threat of death, which for individuals who wish to live is the worst imposition possible. Of course, if that person wants others to live, then they can be forced to act by usinf those others as leverage.

So when asking yourself who has power, the relevant question is whom individuals are willing to give power based on their own desires and values.

[GetsTan]

dp

[Mowselelex]

Originally posted by GePap
Power: 1. ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something.

If you can act, you have power. Making a choice is power. Choosing not to work there is a choice, and therefore an excersice in power. True you always have a choice to make. So you are always free? Free is a relative term. You always have some freedom, but you are still not free.
It may seem "simple", but everything begins simple. You may say its complex, but if you don't understand the simple underpinning of the system, how can you possibly really understand the system? I don't think I fully understand the system. I doubt that I full understand even the underpinning of the system. And probably most people don't. That's really part of the problem. It's so complex. Complexity makes us powerless.

Assuming we all want to live, we have to accept those who have power over us. This is power to you? Why?

I don't make that assuptions because it is a demostrably false assumption. Well I want to live, Pekka wants to live, generally people want to live. So what point is there to consider the situation where we don't want to live?
I ask you a simple question - how does a dictator stay in power? Any adult human being is strong enough to kill another human being with their bare hands - add weapons to the mix, it becomes even more obvious that any adult is a deadly threat to another. Why don't the minions of some tyrant just kill him in his sleep? What keeps them being minions? fear of whom? The tyrant personally is not able to keep control physically, so then, fear of whom? Other minons? But why would those minions be more loyal than you, less willing to remove the tyrant?? The question is simple, and the answer is simple. I would not assasinate the dictator because I might fail and be totured and executed. I have no control over the other subjects and none of them has control over me. Are you suggesting that I should no longer want to live so that I can remove the dictator? How exactly do I do that? I don't have the power to do that.
Its is ones ideas, ones values, and ones desires that shape our fears. Change your values, your desires, and your fears, and what is power over you changes. A man who wants a house will fear foreclosure and the bank that may take it away. A man who does not want a house has no reason to fear the bank, and so forth. Yes, how does one change their desires and exactly what is the point of doing that?
I made no statement about ideal governance. I made a statement about legitimacy, or the willingness of people to submit to others. Since rulers exploit our fears we have power over them? Still not making any sense.

[pirinosa]

What about not desiring freedom any longer? Then we are free? Like they are free in NK?
Originally posted by GePap
Everyone is free to do anything they want, as long as they understand that any action they take will lead to some consequence. The are ABLE to do it. If that's what you call freedom then maybe we should agree to either talk about what you are ABLE to do and what you can reasonably do with out severe consequences. If we are just going to talk about what we are ABLE to do I don't see the point, and I don't think that is the kind of freedom Pekka is referring to. I certainly wasn't. I want to be ABLE to do something and I want it to be what I WANT to do. That is, I want the consequences to be reasonable.

Well I want to live, Pekka wants to live, generally people want to live. So what point is there to consider the situation where we don't want to live?

If you fail to consider those situation, you can't claim to have a system to explain things worth a damn. Ok so assuming I am willing to die, then I can do somethings, but what does it matter, I'll probably just kill myself.

The question is simple, and the answer is simple. I would not assasinate the dictator because I might fail and be totured and executed.

Wrong answer, because you fail to explain why you should fear to be tortured. That was part of the whole question, why would anyone besides you still follow the dictator? And the dictator as a single individual has no real better change against you than you against them. Sorry, I don't have an explaination as to why I don't want to be totured. I just don't. Most people don't. I don't think they have an explaination either.


Yes, how does one change their desires and exactly what is the point of doing that?

You are free to change your desires at whim. I very well be free, depending on how you define the word, however, I am definitely not ABLE to change my desires. Not at a whim of course. I mean I could go to a drug treatment center and work a program there so that I wont desire drugs anymore, but that's about all I can do with regard to my desires.
As to the point, well, what is the point of your current desires? I don't know. Do you?

You give them power over you, thought I doubt they give you power over them. I have accepted their power over me because of the conscequences involved. I'll grant you this, I am free to kill myself or do something that will result in my death. I think we really want more than that though. Is both life and freedom too much to ask?