Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

Earthfirst · 2002-10-22 21:41:02

When chosing an government to run Mars we naturaly think that our form will be used, a Rebulic like that of early Rome that has a constution that protects it citizens from it becoming to powerful. But if you look at Earth history you see that it is filled with kings that would be god justifeying murder rape and other crimes because the can. "They got the guns and power" You might say prople have rights to freedom but they dont , only the rights the ones in power chose to give them. China for example has a consitution with a bill of rights simialer to the us. That protects its citizens, but they all but forgotten about it and do what ever needed to stay in power.
On Mars this could be an addvantage, given the harhs condiction slaverly would work well, since no amount of money could be used to get them there. Sure all you scfi people dream about it and think how wonderful it would be, but think about sure you go and research your hreat out. The common person would not, just think of a simialer effert here on earth. Could you get thoudands of people to move to antartica and consturct citys roads and grow food, No of croase not. That why it has never been settle, beyond a few research sation or whaling sations on nearby islands. Sure you get small reseach sation going, but never the millions that it would take to turly settle mars and teraform it. Only by enslaving people and bring them there would it work, and controling them. Mars will proble be a despotism or some other sort of dickator run planet.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-23 00:05:04

Dear Mr. Earthfirst:

You asked, "Are People really Free?"

This question was addressed by Edward O. Wilson in a book titled "On Human Nature." Wilson wrote, "The great paradox of determinism and free will, which has held the attention of the wisest of philosophers and psychologists for generations, can be phrased in more biological terms as follows: if our genes are inherited and our environment is a train of physical events set in motion before we were born, how can there be a truly independent agent within the brain? The agent itself is created by the interaction of the genes and the environment. It would appear that our freedom is only a self-delusion."

In other words, people are not really free.

You have asserted that, "Mars will proble be a despotism or some other sort of dickator run planet." I respectfully disagree. The people of Mars will be extremely careful not to oppress each other. They will all be living in fragile, pressurized containers and will avoid doing anything that gives anyone a reason to sabotage those fragile containers. Martians will be very polite and very generous.

Sincerely, Scott G. Beach

clark · 2002-10-23 08:16:22

Earthfirst, your rants are understandable, if a bit misguided. You are demonstrating a basic knowledge of history, yet neglecting to demonstrate an applied understanding of history.

When chosing an government to run Mars we naturaly think that our form will be used, a Rebulic like that of early Rome that has a constution that protects it citizens from it becoming to powerful.

Okay, prove you're smart. WHY do "we" think a republic will be the most natural form of government to develop on Mars? Wouldn't the application of a Republic as a form of government demonstrate that humanity is learning from its past mistakes? IE, we are not repeating the same Dictatorships and Tyrannies that you are pointing out?

This idea that power flows from the barrel of the gun is a bit off to. Power does not flow from the weapon, but from FEAR of use of the weapon. What do the Tyrants fear? The People. Why? Becuase the power, or more precisely the FEAR, that tyrants wield is kept in check by the overall population. If a tyrant is bad enough, no number or manner of weapon will protect him- that is the power inherent in the population- the ultimate check and balance. However, this check and balance is bloody and destructive- a republic is merely a peaceful way of maintaining the mob- making sure that the population by and large is content, so they don't revolt.

Why do americans, or any democratic country tolerate corruption or any other ills perpetuated by the State? Becuase not enough of the population cares. It means that only a small percentage of people ever feel persecuted, which can be handled through other means ((in terms of compensation or remediation) while the rest of the people are made fat and happy.

The "powers that be" have every interest in maintaing the staus quo- which is to keep the majority of the population sated- by doing so, the "powers that be" can maintain their life in security.

People are not free, so now what? Okay, none of us are free- so what are you having for lunch? I wouldn't put to much into this idea since it is a philosphical and theoritcal boogey man with no answer. Either we are free, not free, or somewhere in the middle... I guess, but what does any of those answers mean? What does it change? Not a damn thing.

As for mars being a "despotism", I doubt it. Most educated people prefer to exersice their free will- most people in space will be neccessity be highly educated. However, I do think that they will have some AGREED upon laws that we would view as invassive, improper, and wrong- but then that is merely a cxonsquence of environmental conditions- earth and mars are very different in that respect, no?

Palomar · 2002-10-23 11:56:24

*Perhaps it's more an issue of ::degrees:: of freedom. I don't think it's an "either/or" thing, in the majority of instances.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-10-23 13:00:29

Degrees of freedom?

How much of a slave are you?

Palomar · 2002-10-23 13:13:39

Degrees of freedom?
How much of a slave are you?

*Is it a matter of "slavery," Clark? Or is my statement simply a matter of common sense? Read on:

I'm not allowed to drive 65 mph on my neighborhood street. I ::can:: do this if I wish, but the cops can also stop me and fine me for exceeding the imposed speed limit by 40 mph.

I could stand up and yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater, even if there is no fire, but the authorities can -- and will -- arrest and fine me for public disturbance.

I should make a dollar on every dollar a man earns for doing the same job he does, but because I'm female I'll generally earn only 76 cents for every dollar a man earns. That wasn't my decision, and apparently I and many women don't have the freedom to earn equal pay for equal work, "thanks" to The Male Dominated Establishment.

I could walk down Picacho Street at 3 AM and I should expect that my right to walk thusly would be respected and I would not be molested...though chances are good someone else will impose their will on me and mug, rape, or beat me half senseless.

There are degrees of freedom in the world because there are conflicts of interests and the attempts by others to interfere and impose their wills onto others.

I pay taxes, but I cannot ring the White House doorbell and demand a room for the night, as if it's a hotel.

Does this mean we should sit idly by, mute and accepting of these degrees of freedom? Of course not. Blacks would still be sitting at the backs of buses and drinking out of segregated water fountains if they'd passively accepted the degree of freedom they had in the 1950s and further back in time.

There are degrees of freedom; that just seems obvious to me. However, it ::doesn't:: mean one has to accept or settle for a certain degree of freedom; keep pushing for more!

And I'm not interested in arguing with you, so please know that up front.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-10-23 13:30:02

Who is arguing?

I fail to understand the relevance of your last post. You go on about degrees of freedom and then provide examples of how personal freedom is curtailed to demonstrate the "degree of freedom" in action... at least that is what i assume you are trying to convey.

My understanding of the conversation so far has to with whether or not we are "free" to begin with and where and how our freedoms are established.

Of course I am probably wrong, and I am simply misunderstanding you, or taking you out of context, or some other imagined slight. ???

I heard Shatner had his 65th birthday recently, did you send him a card?

clark · 2002-10-23 14:01:54

Well, seeing that she is married, lives several thousand miles away, and this is the internet, I would have to say no. But feel free to pursue your amore Shaun, I hear flights to Australia are cheap this time of year.

Is that really the best you can do Nida? Did it work when you were in pre-school? Do you feel better now that you are old enough to at least read and write continuing this type of behavior?

Sticks and stones may break my bones
whatever whatever whatever.

twit.

Palomar · 2002-10-23 14:08:57

Clark: "Of course I am probably wrong, and I am simply misunderstanding you, or taking you out of context, or some other imagined slight."

*Lol! Yes, it was all four of those things. Really...all four of them, darling. Clark, I find your attempts at conniving almost endearing. You do have a certain charm, I reluctantly admit. I simply meant to indicate to you that I didn't wish to debate the subject; I apologize if I sounded rude.

Clark: "I heard Shatner had his 65th birthday recently, did you send him a card?"

*Shatner was born in 1931 or 1932, very close to my father's year of birth, so actually he's at the 70 mark now. And last I saw him, on a new TV commercial, he still looks pretty good for his age.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-10-23 14:31:27

Conniving? To what end? LOL, No matter.

And his birthday is March 22, 1931.... boy, I was off...

clark · 2002-10-24 07:24:31

You're right Nida. My god [smack my forhead], all this time, and you see so clearly and so expertly. How did you know? I mean, I thought I hid it so well. Well, I guess it must be pretty obvious, huh?

Let me guess, you would be about 10-14, right? Probably more around 12. Well, go girl power! How are you taking the breakup of the Spice Girls, or is Britney still vogue? I was reading in the latest Teens magaizine about Justine and Brtiney's breakup- man, that suxs, huh.

Now, I can treat you like an adult, or we continue this, it's all the same to me. Most people, when they grow up, tend to avoid using the same old school yard tactics- if you persist, then you merely demonstrate that you haven't quite gotten over your feeling of persecution- is that it, did the children tease you, hurt your feelings? Or were you simply on the other side, the one teasing, and are emotionaly stunted so this behavior is the only way you can communicate?

No need to answer directly, it will be apparent in how you continue to relate here to others.

Perhaps we can both sing this song together:

Clark and Cindy sitting in a tree
blah blah blah
blah blah blah....

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-24 11:25:41

Degrees of freedom?

Clark:

People experience the feeling of freedom when they can do almost anything that they want to do. When they want to do many things that they cannot do then they experience a lesser degree of freedom.

A society has a very effective system of socialization and social control if its members want to do what they ought to do. The members of a society can experience high degrees of freedom even though their behavior is determined by their (1) physiology, (2) history of reinforcement and punishment, and (3) current environment.

Freedom is best understood as an emotional state. Using freedom as a theory of behavior (e.g., "People do what they do because they are free.") does not explain anything.

Scott

clark · 2002-10-24 11:53:36

People experience the feeling of freedom when they can do almost anything that they want to do.

So a slave who wants to be a slave is actually free?

When they want to do many things that they cannot do then they experience a lesser degree of freedom.

So a slave is someone who is experiencing a lesser degree of freedom?

A society has a very effective system of socialization and social control if its members want to do what they ought to do.

Ought to do? Who determines what they ought to do?

The members of a society can experience high degrees of freedom even though
their behavior is determined by their (1) physiology, (2) history of reinforcement and punishment, and (3) current environment.

Look, this is a philosphical boogey man. If we are limited by the things you sight, we are powerless to overcome them, as such, we are never free- yet really what you are doing is pointing out the influences that detract from the theoritcal supposition of "free-will" in the classical sense. So we don't have free-will then? Or maybe perhaps we are all the victims of circumstance and are merely left to decide on what urges to act upon. If that is so, then we would be exercising the closest thing we are capable of to freedom, as such, for all intents and purposes, we might as well call that true freedom0 becuase that is all we will ever know given our limited perception.

If we cannot perceive it, it does not exsist.

Freedom is best understood as an emotional state.

Please describe the "feeling" of freedom as an emotional state. Freedom is a quantifiable idea that can be measured in ability to engage in actions on equal terms with others.

Palomar · 2002-10-24 12:33:13

Freedom is best understood as an emotional state.

*I bet my nation's Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves with the knowledge that they didn't ::have to:: engage in a bloody, years-long battle with England for freedom as an independant, sovereign nation. Nope, instead they could have simply written to King George about their emotions!

--Cindy

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-24 13:29:51

Clark, you asked, "So a slave who wants to be a slave is actually free?"

No. A slave who wants to be a slave is nevertheless, under law, a slave. Let's not confuse the legal concepts of freeman and slave with the feeling of freedom (an emotional state).

Clark, you asked, "So a slave is someone who is experiencing a lesser degree of freedom?" Not necessarily. A slave whose master makes few demands on him may feel more freedom than the master's daughter, especially if the master refuses to allow the daughter to marry a man whom she dearly loves. The daughter may feel highly oppressed while the slave feels a high degree of freedom.

Clark, you asked, "Ought to do? Who determines what they ought to do?" In the near term, what people ought to do is determined by, for example, the king ("The law is in my mouth," said King James), the Parliament, the Congress, the Legislature, the Port Zubrin Community Council. In the long term, what people ought to do is determined by natural selection; some sociocultural systems survive and others don't.

Clark, you asked, "So we don't have free-will then?" Free will is a theological concept, not a scientific theory. Scientists do not theorize that each human is inhabited by a supernatural entity that controls human behavior.

Clark, you requested that I "describe the 'feeling' of freedom as an emotional state." Several hundred people are being held at gun-point in a Moscow theater. They are most likely feeling an emotion called fear. In contrast, Mr. Multi-billionaire Warren Buffet, who has enough money to do almost anything that he can think of, probably feels quite free.

Scott

clark · 2002-10-24 14:22:29

A slave whose master makes few demands on him may feel more freedom than the master's daughter, especially if the master refuses to allow the daughter to marry a man whom
she dearly loves. The daughter may feel highly oppressed while the slave feels a high degree of freedom.

Yet the feeling of the slave is not substaniated in any meaningful way. The feeling exsists only as a fantasy, in terms of perception. The slave may not do what they want within an equal framework of agreements- it is a matter of equity that I think you are neglecting, or at least, ignoring.

I understand what you are trying to convey, but it is dancing around the very real manifestation of freedom. Freedom does exsist as something tangible- it is the ability to engage in any and all actions on equal terms with everyone else. What you describe with a daughter and a slave is merely demonstrating varying degrees of slavery, not freedom.

The duaghter is not able to act in a manner that is equal to what the Father may do- the slave, irregardless of feeling, is unable to act in a manner that is equal to what the master may do.

If we all lived in chains, then we would all be free since there is an equality in action- we are all free not to do the same things. However, as soon as someone is allowed to do something I am not, we enter into an unequal partnership which forms the very basis of slavery.

The denial of action that is available to others is the imposition of ones will upon another to deny them an opportunity. We either all agree we can't do something, or we all agree that we can all do that something.

That's what is fundamentaly wrong with not drafting women or not allowing gays to serve in the military- it is also why it is wrong to deny women who wish to serve in combat- it is an enforcement of an unequal partnership and a denial of freedom of action which is applied unequally.

I think I might actually stop here becuase I see what you are getting at, but it is theoritcal bullsh*t that can't be proved and even if it could, the results are meanigless since we're powerless to change it.

Scientists do not theorize that each human is inhabited by a supernatural entity that controls human behavior.

"And yet it moves..." LOL. Sorry, just love that quote.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-24 15:30:53

Clark, you wrote, "I think I might actually stop here becuase I see what you are getting at, but it is theoritcal bullsh*t that can't be proved and even if it could, the results are meanigless since we're powerless to change it."

The proposition that the behavior of a complex organism (e.g., a horse, dolphin, chimpanzee, or human) is determined by the organism's physiology, history of reinforcement and punishment, and current environment, is a scientific theory. People can and do use techniques that are based on that theory in order to shape the behaviors of various species of organisms, including humans. We could apply those techniques to the task of creating a human sociocultural system that can maintain and replicate itself on Mars. Or we could teach people to believe that they have supernatural souls and free will and then we could use those theological doctrines to justify rewarding and punishing them in order to shape them into Martian settlers.

Science or Religion; take your pick!

clark · 2002-10-24 15:58:23

The proposition that the behavior of a complex organism (e.g., a horse, dolphin, chimpanzee, or human) is determined by the organism's physiology, history of reinforcement and punishment, and current environment, is a scientific theory.

Yes, a scientific theory that is unable to account for individual actions that violate the basis of predictive behavior. Sorry, but I am not that much of a behaviorist as to deny the role of cognition upon the very influences you describe. You are completely discounting the documented influence of the mind over physiology, the theory also can't answer why some actions occur without any type of incentive or irregardless of the punishment associated with it. As for the "current environment", that is a bit generalized and pretty meaningless- the current environment is all things- a majority of which cannot be quanitatively assesed, which renders any type of correlational effect as meaningless- there are to many opportunities for the data to be confounded.

Should we battle over which version of psychology is correct here? Skinner had a lot of good stuff, but he is not the complete answer.

I reject your either/or conclusion.

Palomar · 2002-10-24 16:17:19

That's what is fundamentaly wrong with not drafting women or not allowing gays to serve in the military- it is also why it is wrong to deny women who wish to serve in combat- it is an enforcement of an unequal partnership and a denial of freedom of action which is applied unequally.

*As I'm sure you're aware, Clark, there is currently no active draft in the U.S.A. Males reaching the age of 18, however, have to sign up for "Selective Service."

As for females having to sign up for "Selective Service" upon reaching age 18 [this was debated amongst legislators when I was in my late teens; I don't know if it has been again in more recent years or not], and thus being eligible for the draft; sure...so long as female recruits are getting ::equal pay:: to their male counterparts, no problem. I was ready to comply with the requirement for females back then, if the law had been passed.

However, if the bullcrap of less pay for same work for women holds in the military, as it does in the corporate and private sector, screw it. If a woman is going to be called up for military service, she is entitled to the same exact rate of pay and benefits package [medical, dental, etc.] as that of any male in her same rank, performing the same duties and under the same obligations.

'Nuff said.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-10-24 16:22:36

Science or Religion; take your pick!

*Science, please.

With a side order of onion rings. Thanks.

--Cindy

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-24 19:08:14

You are completely discounting the documented influence of the mind over physiology...

Clark:

The mind is what the brain does.

Scott

Earthfirst · 2002-10-24 21:36:25

I dint know that new Mars forms were also a dating game too!!
You Guys and Gals are worest than than dating shows, like elmadate, The fith wheel, and Dismiss. It brings and whole new meaning to cat fight!!!! There no need to call Nida a tiwt clark, were not in junor high any more, maybe some of use still are Clark. From what I hread from E Wild on Austraila that Ausie women are quit wild on first dates. Just ask Burk Burt a native Arizonan. Come on stay on track this is not your own person hook up site.
Freedom sure can be fun cant it? Mars is the god of war so naturaly every one would be fighting their, so I say go to Venus a get some loving. Its better than being a slave.
Play nice now!!!

clark · 2002-10-25 08:21:17

*As I'm sure you're aware, Clark, there is currently no active draft in the U.S.A. Males reaching the age of 18, however, have to sign up for "Selective Service."

What I found funny was I had to check in a box on the draft form for my gender.

Are you also aware that failure to fill out your draft cards automaticaly denies you the opportunity to apply for federal finacnial aid? Are you aware that not filling it out, even though no active draft is in place, is considered a crime? Are you aware that every time a male between the ages of 18-26 moves, he must, by law, inform the draft agency his new address?

Women cry about equality, yet here is inequality based solely on gender. If I do not wish to submit to a draft, what are my options? Serve or flee. Comply or be a criminal (and maybe president). I wholehardly agree that women should be paid on a scale just as men- however, they shouldn't get preferential treatment either- you get paid based on skill- so if you suck as a women soldier, than you get paid at the same rate as a man that sucks as a soldier. But the finacial aspect is a side issue- the draft is an agreement in society whereby some of us are compelled to defend our agreements- our Society, which women happen to make up 50% of. Where is equality if only half the population has a requirement to defend the group, while the other half has no such requirement? Change it to a color issue- if we only drafted non-white people, and white people were exempt, and actually forbidden to fight in combat, would you claim that this system is equal? Then why gender? That is my point of view.

The mind is what the brain does.

Prove it. You have your theories, others have theirs. The issue is not so open and closed as you are suggesting.

Palomar · 2002-10-25 08:48:05

Women cry about equality, yet here is inequality based solely on gender. If I do not wish to submit to a draft, what are my options? Serve or flee. Comply or be a criminal (and maybe president).

*Sure, there are double-standards [inequities] toward men as well.

As for the example you cite, well...go tell it to the men in charge who made those rules; the draft, selective service, and "serve or flee" situations were machinated at a time when only men were in charge, making the rules. Men are still the overwhelming majority in decision making, writing up of laws, etc.; tell it to them.

-not interested in pursuing this line of conversation further-

--Cindy

clark · 2002-10-25 09:39:37

Good point Cindy. And women get exactly what they deserve as well.

I say if you're not willing to step up to the plate, then don't complain what you are handed. Enjoy the charity.

And Thanks Nida for finally realizing an apparent truth.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-10-22 21:41:02

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#2 2002-10-23 00:05:04

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#3 2002-10-23 08:16:22

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#4 2002-10-23 11:56:24

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#5 2002-10-23 13:00:29

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#6 2002-10-23 13:13:39

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#7 2002-10-23 13:30:02

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#8 2002-10-23 14:01:54

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#9 2002-10-23 14:08:57

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#10 2002-10-23 14:31:27

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#11 2002-10-24 07:24:31

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#12 2002-10-24 11:25:41

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#13 2002-10-24 11:53:36

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#14 2002-10-24 12:33:13

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#15 2002-10-24 13:29:51

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#16 2002-10-24 14:22:29

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#17 2002-10-24 15:30:53

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#18 2002-10-24 15:58:23

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#19 2002-10-24 16:17:19

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#20 2002-10-24 16:22:36

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#21 2002-10-24 19:08:14

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#22 2002-10-24 21:36:25

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#23 2002-10-25 08:21:17

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#24 2002-10-25 08:48:05

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

#25 2002-10-25 09:39:37

Re: Freedom?????? - Are People really Free?

Board footer