What Do You Personally Feel Prevented From Doing by Lack of Freedom/Liberty?

[STer]

 

the language of those who feel neglected and abandoned

My personal opinion is that this is the language of emotionally dependent people.

rather than intruded upon and violated,

and this is the language of self sufficiency and personal efficacy.

 

What's your personal relationship to 'dependency' vs. 'self sufficiency'? Which do you consider superior?

 

 

I find it pretty surprising that on a forum that almost revolves around awareness of the massive levels of abuse and neglect that go on that you would refer to "emotionally dependent people" in some derogatory way. You can't both promote the idea that abuse and neglect of children are rampant and at the same time chastise people for not being self-sufficient. You can promote self-sufficiency as a goal which will require a lot of healing to achieve. But this is just my point. Many people, until they get that healing, will feel the wounds of their abuse and neglect in the form of feelings of abandonment.

Certain people react to certain forms of abuse by feeling violated and intruded upon - fear of engulfment. I think it is often these people that become very resistant to authority, the State, etc. Other people react to other forms of abuse or neglect by feeling very needy and alone - fear of abandonment. These fears are just as understandable as the fears of engulfment. But they lead not to a feeling of being violated or intruded upon, which might lead to a strong disdain for authority or the State, but a feeling of great need for an authority figure - or at least some other people - to help take care of them - dependence as you might call it.

My point is that I think anarchists/liberatarians should be very aware that while they may, for whatever reasons, have developed more of the anti-authority, intrusion feelings, there are many people who, out of very similar roots and in a quite valid way, develop the needy, dependent feelings. Preaching liberty/freedom does nothing to address their wounds and feelings and this is why I think this movement will fail to capture a huge percentage of the population. If, however, anarchists/libertarians came to view both intrusion and neglect as two sides of the same wounding coin, they could tailor their approach more to speak to both wounded groups in ways that would resonate. Feelings of being limited in freedom are important to address. But so are feelings of having plenty of freedom and being left lost and abandoned, able to go anywhere, but with no idea where to go or how to get there.

[Lowe D]

Everything? Prevented from having a childhood, prevented from getting an education, prevented from going back to school, prevented from entering any of numerous professions I might want to, prevented from keeping my pay, prevented from buying what I want, prevented from doing what I want, prevented from living as I want.

Public schooling destroyed whatever of my childhood my parents left behind.  I was miserable almost all the time for the first twenty years of my life, because of the three-pronged pitchfork that was my family, the state, and the church.

That pitchfork ruined my life, and I don't care what other people think about it.  Other people can stew in the big boiling pots they heat up for themselves.  I am so not trying to make sacrifices to bring about freedom for other people.

[Formelyknown]

It isn't about compromise. One say the taxes do X and I show it doesn't. I don't care to pay 50% of my income if it does what is suppose to do. If they want to make me and themselves slaves of a system be right about it. That an ancap or statist are wounded doesn't change reality of the situation.

[PatrickC]

 

 

I'm not entirely sure I understand the premise for this thread STer. It seems that people are giving you their particular reasons and then you go ahead dismissing them one by one with no more reasoning let's say than their own. What is the purpose of this thread for you?

 

I didn't dismiss them (at least most of them, a couple of them I do dismiss if they just aren't accurate). I mainly keep pointing out that their answers don't seem to be ones that most people in the public would be motivated by. I'm shining a light on the gap between the things people on FDR feel strongly about, leading them to this general sense of being somehow oppressed by the government and the sense in the general public, which I think is more on the other side, if anything - that they are too often neglected and left to fend for themselves.

Like I said, I certainly don't mean to diminish the frustrations people really do feel. And I'm sure many of them are quite real. I just find it an interesting contrast between the view of government on FDR as oppressive and limiting of freedom and the general sense in the public that, for the most part, in the West, we can do as we please as long as we aren't being too extreme (more extreme than most people care to be anyway.)

It goes back to the last part of my OP where I said "I think this topic is pretty important because if you're trying to convince people to work and make sacrifices to bring about more freedom and liberty, there would have to be clear things people really want to do but can't currently to motivate them to put in such effort."

 

The thing I find interesting about this view (of FDR), is that it doesn't quite live up to my experience of it. Having said that, I imagine everyone has a different experience of FDR and what draws them here. So perhaps you're right and there are people on this board that think this way. Certainly I've seen many people come and go on this board over the years and mostly for very individual and personal reasons.

That said, my take on this idea of convincing people is a somewhat null one for me. Insofar as I realise I have very little effect on changing people. Trying to convince them of my way of thinking, often just leads me into a world of frustration and despair (at least historically). Personally, it's hard enough convincing myself of a better course of action in my own life, even when I'm presented with the evidence. That to imagine I could change someone else’s mind, would I think be tomfoolery on my part. I enjoy a good debate and argument like many do here on this forum. But I try not to emotionally invest in it (unless it's a loved one), because debate and discussion are often fun, interesting and a great way to meet people. I feel a lot more peace, now that I'm no longer responsible for changing peoples minds.

[tasmlab]

Hi STer,

 

I didn't understand your premise at first, but I think you make a good case that the arguement for liberty is pretty hard to communicate solely on personal effect.  Sort of like in "Madagascar" where the animals don't really understand what's going to happen without their zookeepers (sorry to reference children movie).

I guess that's why Stef urges everyone to start with morality.  Then injustice, such as the govt's mass murder of innocents, it's imprisonment, the rampant fascism, wealth-inequality as-product-of-state, etc.

Frankly, I had to read a dozen books and a thousand articles and then weeks of podcast over 15-20 years to get here, so I shouldn't be surprised nor dissapointed that I can't point to a personal bugaboo that I think would change everybody's mind.

[Victor]

Living with the state is like growing up in an abusive family. You cannot explain what exactly it is because you've never seen it, but you damn well know you're being robbed of something amazingly wonderful that nobody can ever make up for.

[cherapple]

 

I guess that's why Stef urges everyone to start with morality.  Then injustice, such as the govt's mass murder of innocents, it's imprisonment, the rampant fascism, wealth-inequality as-product-of-state, etc.

 

Stef starts with personal relationships, not with morality, which is one tool for finding and building meaningful relationships. 

I would say self-expression is where I've felt least free in my life. Yes, I'd like to not have an astronomical amount of my money and time stolen from me, but being able to express my deepest thoughts and feelings, and talk about my most cherished interests, with the people around me who claim to love me is the freedom that is most important to me. I wouldn't say I'm prevented from that anymore, though, now that I've staked my claim on my emotional, intellectual, and physical life. I don't care what anyone in government does, but I do care what those I am closest to do. They have way more power to respect or disrespect my freedom than a stranger from an institution. 

[STer]

 

 

 

I'm not entirely sure I understand the premise for this thread STer. It seems that people are giving you their particular reasons and then you go ahead dismissing them one by one with no more reasoning let's say than their own. What is the purpose of this thread for you?

 

I didn't dismiss them (at least most of them, a couple of them I do dismiss if they just aren't accurate). I mainly keep pointing out that their answers don't seem to be ones that most people in the public would be motivated by. I'm shining a light on the gap between the things people on FDR feel strongly about, leading them to this general sense of being somehow oppressed by the government and the sense in the general public, which I think is more on the other side, if anything - that they are too often neglected and left to fend for themselves.

Like I said, I certainly don't mean to diminish the frustrations people really do feel. And I'm sure many of them are quite real. I just find it an interesting contrast between the view of government on FDR as oppressive and limiting of freedom and the general sense in the public that, for the most part, in the West, we can do as we please as long as we aren't being too extreme (more extreme than most people care to be anyway.)

It goes back to the last part of my OP where I said "I think this topic is pretty important because if you're trying to convince people to work and make sacrifices to bring about more freedom and liberty, there would have to be clear things people really want to do but can't currently to motivate them to put in such effort."

 

The thing I find interesting about this view (of FDR), is that it doesn't quite live up to my experience of it. Having said that, I imagine everyone has a different experience of FDR and what draws them here. So perhaps you're right and there are people on this board that think this way. Certainly I've seen many people come and go on this board over the years and mostly for very individual and personal reasons.

That said, my take on this idea of convincing people is a somewhat null one for me. Insofar as I realise I have very little effect on changing people. Trying to convince them of my way of thinking, often just leads me into a world of frustration and despair (at least historically). Personally, it's hard enough convincing myself of a better course of action in my own life, even when I'm presented with the evidence. That to imagine I could change someone else’s mind, would I think be tomfoolery on my part. I enjoy a good debate and argument like many do here on this forum. But I try not to emotionally invest in it (unless it's a loved one), because debate and discussion are often fun, interesting and a great way to meet people. I feel a lot more peace, now that I'm no longer responsible for changing peoples minds.

 

Even for those who opt not to try to change other people's minds, it's still very helpful to understand how one's position compares with that of the people around them.

I doubt you'd deny that the general sentiment at FDR is that
government is oppressive and stifles our freedoms to an unacceptable
degree. For me, it's just interesting when I hear the framing of it as a liberty/freedom issue because I just don't think that's how most people in the West, in their day-to-day lives, experience it.

[STer]

 

Hi STer,

 

I didn't understand your premise at first, but I think you make a good case that the arguement for liberty is pretty hard to communicate solely on personal effect.  Sort of like in "Madagascar" where the animals don't really understand what's going to happen without their zookeepers (sorry to reference children movie).

I guess that's why Stef urges everyone to start with morality.  Then injustice, such as the govt's mass murder of innocents, it's imprisonment, the rampant fascism, wealth-inequality as-product-of-state, etc.

Frankly, I had to read a dozen books and a thousand articles and then weeks of podcast over 15-20 years to get here, so I shouldn't be surprised nor dissapointed that I can't point to a personal bugaboo that I think would change everybody's mind.

 

Right tasmlab. So I see two big gaps here.

As you say, most people in the West don't seem to perceive a personal effect of their liberty being seriously curtailed. So arguing from effect, if that's the case, is unlikely to work.

So then you say "Well let's use the moral arguments instead." But like I said earlier, moral arguments alone only work with people who are deontologists. If they are consequentialists or a mix of the two, then they won't necessarily be moved by moral arguments alone. They can weigh the moral arguments against some consequences they see as beneficial and determine that it's worth some moral imperfection.

It's interesting because Stefan does seem to constantly go back to the argument from morality and discourage arguments from effect. But (and maybe I simply missed this since I have never had time to listen to all his work) I haven't heard it addressed that a lot of people simply are not pure deontologists so purely moral arguments will not be effective with them.

I recently posted in a thread about personality types/Myers-Briggs and I wonder how that might tie into this too. Perhaps certain types are more likely to be more deontological and others more consequentialists. Or maybe it's an aspect of temperament separate from MBTI specifically. But in any case, people have different epistemologies and different ethical stances.

[STer]

 

Living with the state is like growing up in an abusive family. You cannot explain what exactly it is because you've never seen it, but you damn well know you're being robbed of something amazingly wonderful that nobody can ever make up for.

 

What is it that the state robs you of specifically? And if your argument is how childhood is lost due to public schooling, that doesn't completely hold because homeschooling is allowed.

[STer]

 

 

I guess that's why Stef urges everyone to start with morality.  Then injustice, such as the govt's mass murder of innocents, it's imprisonment, the rampant fascism, wealth-inequality as-product-of-state, etc.

 

Stef starts with personal relationships, not with morality, which is one tool for finding and building meaningful relationships. 

I would say self-expression is where I've felt least free in my life. Yes, I'd like to not have an astronomical amount of my money and time stolen from me, but being able to express my deepest thoughts and feelings, and talk about my most cherished interests, with the people around me who claim to love me is the freedom that is most important to me. I wouldn't say I'm prevented from that anymore, though, now that I've staked my claim on my emotional, intellectual, and physical life. I don't care what anyone in government does, but I do care what those I am closest to do. They have way more power to respect or disrespect my freedom than a stranger from an institution. 

 

As far as I've seen, Stefan argues for pure deontology. Does it get more hardcore deontological than the idea that there is "universally preferable behavior"? He does not like arguments from effect. So if doing something moral were to alienate you from friends and family, he would say that's the cost of being moral. I have not seem him put relationships above morality. In fact, I've seen him advocate that relationships that involve any immorality should be discarded.

The fact you could go from unable to express yourself with those around you to able to do so says to me that the state was not the entity primarily preventing it. The state didn't change and yet you are now able to do it. So I have a hard time seeing that as something the state was preventing. And I doubt very many people perceive the state as preventing it in their lives either.

[tasmlab]

 

It's interesting because Stefan does seem to constantly go back to the argument from morality and discourage arguments from effect. But (and maybe I simply missed this since I have never had time to listen to all his work) I haven't heard it addressed that a lot of people simply are not pure deontologists so purely moral arguments will not be effective with them.

 

 

From what I've heard, he gives a more simple reason for using the argument from morality and that's that the establishment also uses it and people respond to it.  People beleive the 'war is just' or that welfare is 'caring for the poor because it is virtuous" and rarely sit and ponder the effects.

My personal opinion is that we need inductive arguements i.e., it's moral, it's effectual, it's corrupted (beyond intent of morality or outcome) and it's personal.  That way if one arguement is rejected there are more to support the point.

[cherapple]

 

As far as I've seen, Stefan argues for pure deontology. Does it get more hardcore deontological than the idea that there is "universally preferable behavior"? He does not like arguments from effect. So if doing something moral were to alienate you from friends and family, he would say that's the cost of being moral. I have not seem him put relationships above morality. In fact, I've seen him advocate that relationships that involve any immorality should be discarded.

The fact you could go from unable to express yourself with those around you to able to do so says to me that the state was not the entity primarily preventing it. The state didn't change and yet you are now able to do it. So I have a hard time seeing that as something the state was preventing. And I doubt very many people perceive the state as preventing it in their lives either.

 

Of course it wasn't the state that made me unable to express myself. It was my family and the people around me rejecting me every time I tried, and preferring that I didn't try. I didn't alienate and discard my family. They alienated and discarded me, and realizing that was the gift of morality, not the cost. They pay the cost of not having a relationship with me, or themselves, but I'm no longer paying the cost of not having a relationship with myself. 

[cherapple]

 

What is it that the state robs you of specifically? And if your argument is how childhood is lost due to public schooling, that doesn't completely hold because homeschooling is allowed.

 

Homeschooling is not allowed by most parents, so the fact that it's legal according to the state is irrelevant for most children. 

[STer]

 

 

What is it that the state robs you of specifically? And if your argument is how childhood is lost due to public schooling, that doesn't completely hold because homeschooling is allowed.

 

Homeschooling is not allowed by most parents, so the fact that it's legal according to the state is irrelevant for most children. 

 

My point is that if the parents choose not to homeschool, and you believe that public schools corrupt childhood, then you could say it's the parents preventing the kid's childhood, not the state. Yes the state obviously puts forth influence there. But the ultimate decision to put the child through it is the parents'.

[Lowe D]

I personally feel prevented from having conversations and relationships with about one hundred thousand Iraqis.

[PatrickC]

Even for those who opt not to try to change other people's minds, it's still very helpful to understand how one's position compares with that of the people around them.

As a means to undersatnding the mechanics of the wider world and the thoughts and motivations of those around you, yes it is helpful. But of course, as I'm sure you realise, that is a whole diifferent pursuit to that of attempting to change a persons mind.

I doubt you'd deny that the general sentiment at FDR is that
government is oppressive and stifles our freedoms to an unacceptable
degree. For me, it's just interesting when I hear the framing of it as a liberty/freedom issue because I just don't think that's how most people in the West, in their day-to-day lives, experience it.

No I wouldn't disagree with that as a general sentiment. And within the wider world of the 'freedom movement', they do tend to focus most of their attention on govt like you're suggesting, which does become frustratingly dull (at least for me). I think a whole lot less of that occurs here at FDR (in my experience). The focus on personal relationships and well being are a big part of what gets discussed here. Perhaps less so on the boards, but then again I wouldn't say the boards are necessarily a great reflection of the community as a whole. Personal freedom being a much more achievable goal because it only involves the individual making changes and not the rest of the world.

That being said, I agree that many people in the west are oblique to the idea of not being free. Most have been convinced by years of indoctrination in schools and a media that just reads out govt missives verbatim with little critcism. Then there is the other side in which people are often dependent on govt for their jobs, food, health and shelter or at least aware of a loved one that is. Perhaps that's an over simplification of why many people are reticent to the 'liberty message', but it covers the majority I think. I thought you raised an excellent point earlier in the thread, in response to MrCapitalism, regarding the neglected and abandoned. I would wholeheartedly agree with you that these people are important. That merely feeling aggressed upon or violated is just one (albeit valid) outcome of abuse. Stefan has addressed this in some of his earlier podcasts if I recall. Of course peaceful parenting goes some way into avoiding being neglectful of your childs needs. However, I would agree that there is still much to learn, as these are often the hardest people to reach, because the journey to recovery for them is usually a longer and more painful one. However, I am still mindful that there are always going to be people that are uninterested (unreachable). In my opinion learning how to detect those kinds can be just as useful as finding ways to reach others.

[Victor]

 

 

Living with the state is like growing up in an abusive family. You cannot explain what exactly it is because you've never seen it, but you damn well know you're being robbed of something amazingly wonderful that nobody can ever make up for.

 

What is it that the state robs you of specifically? And if your argument is how childhood is lost due to public schooling, that doesn't completely hold because homeschooling is allowed.

 

I feel sad for having to explain this, but it's ok. I understand.

I have a 1 year-old daughter. Her life is exciting and wonderful. She has a powerful drive to learn and play and is full of love and laughter. She's safe and surrounded by happy people interested in what goes on in her life; people eager to get to know her preferences and respecting them. Now I know what I missed as a child.

The state, the institutionalization of violence and the externalization of responsibility, the collectivization of debt... I have no experience of a world without it. And I know it is simply impossible for me to accurately imagine a world free from this, just as I could not ever imagine a happy childhood while living a crappy one. All I can do is dream.

It's impossibly hard to imagine a world where people can travel the world freely and live and work where they decide it's best for them; a world with no invasions or armies; a world without thugs administering/pillaging the wealth of billions; a world where people are not hiding from and adapting to a violent hierarchical hegemony of vicious manipulative thugs; where there are no secret police and mafias and intelligence services and government sponsored cartels; a world where people relate with one another individually with respect and with full expectation of quality...

I'm an imaginative guy, but I cannot get that far. Can you?

[DaisyAnarchist]

I think this topic is pretty important because if you're trying to convince people to work and make sacrifices to bring about more freedom and liberty, there would have to be clear things people really want to do but can't currently to motivate them to put in such effort.

Okay, I overlooked this part when responding to your thread. I don't think that this is the case, because we see in more obviously-oppressed countries/economies that the people still advocate for government action and expansion in certain areas. I don't think my personal complaints about government, no matter how intense, will actually convince nonlibertarians that government is the reason they feel prevented from doing the things they want to do in life. That's a philosophical conclusion that the person in question has to arrive at themselves.

I think the most we can do is provide the principles and arguments in as civil a manner as possible, and let the other person take those arguments how they will. I've actually convinced several people that they like anarchist principles, they just don't see the practicality of them. But I figure that's a step in the right direction. For a while I also thought anarchist principles were mostly idealistic, even though I really appreciated them as well. Then I began searching for practicality. 

Let me ask this: Did you arrive at anarchism because you felt prevented from doing certain things or having certain freedoms? I'm not entirely sure that that's why I arrived at anarchism. If anything, it was a more objective view that government wasn't handling problems in society very effectively. I think the very first thing that got me on my philosophical path to libertarianism was how much hatred and disdain I noticed that people in other countries held about this country. It wasn't so much that I felt personally violated or restricted, although in time that factored in as well. It's possible that that was a strong underlying reason for questioning government, I just didn't realize it at the time.  

This points out part of why I started this thread. I have a feeling the things that frustrate a lot of people on this board are not things that are very powerful in moving people in the general public to get really active and resistant. When people feel really oppressed in more basic ways like what you can say, what you can wear and so on, as in some really repressive societies, I think they're more likely to become fed up. But if the lack of freedom here amounts to things like this, I can't see it being strong enough to really motivate people to resist or even perceive much of a lack of freedom.

So shouldn't you be asking, "What caused you to become fed up with government and pursue liberty?" ? 

So a lot of yours are economic too like others. And besides those, you just wonder what we might be able to do that we aren't even aware is possible. Again, not that motivating to the average person if you compare it to the types of things that really get people feeling oppressed to the point of wanting to change society.

I think this thread is showing why most people, though they feel some annoyances at taxes and red tape, don't really perceive a "lack of freedom" as a major problem in the West. They don't wake up feeling all the things they really want to do but can't because of the government.

I think the real reason that people don't recognize a lack of freedoms in this country is that they're taught from an early age that government is necessary. Media and public schools and other institutions push this manipulative hypnosis on children. Pledge loyalty to a piece of fabric, recite the declaration of independence, support the troops, read Lord of the Flies, go to school and learn nothing particularly useful there, learn obedience to authority figures, etc. etc...

My point is that if the parents choose not to homeschool, and you believe that public schools corrupt childhood, then you could say it's the parents preventing the kid's childhood, not the state. Yes the state obviously puts forth influence there. But the ultimate decision to put the child through it is the parents'.

But how much of a choice do some parents have, when they need to work 9-5 to earn enough money to support their children? Other options also cost more. This is not to excuse the parents for never questioning why they feel they have to subject their children to public schooling, but I can at least understand that some parents are limited by options. The state has a tendency to limit options.

It also helps to remember that I only recently became an anarchist. So, for about 20 years of my life, I didn't really question the school system, or government. I went through the same thought processes as a statist. It takes a lot of constantly reassessing personal values and beliefs to arrive at anarchism. This self-questioning and transformation process is not comfortable for a lot of people. Again, not excusing them, but I can see why blind contentedness so wide-spread. 

[STer]

 

 

 

Living with the state is like growing up in an abusive family. You cannot explain what exactly it is because you've never seen it, but you damn well know you're being robbed of something amazingly wonderful that nobody can ever make up for.

 

What is it that the state robs you of specifically? And if your argument is how childhood is lost due to public schooling, that doesn't completely hold because homeschooling is allowed.

 

I feel sad for having to explain this, but it's ok. I understand.

I have a 1 year-old daughter. Her life is exciting and wonderful. She has a powerful drive to learn and play and is full of love and laughter. She's safe and surrounded by happy people interested in what goes on in her life; people eager to get to know her preferences and respecting them. Now I know what I missed as a child.

The state, the institutionalization of violence and the externalization of responsibility, the collectivization of debt... I have no experience of a world without it. And I know it is simply impossible for me to accurately imagine a world free from this, just as I could not ever imagine a happy childhood while living a crappy one. All I can do is dream.

It's impossibly hard to imagine a world where people can travel the world freely and live and work where they decide it's best for them; a world with no invasions or armies; a world without thugs administering/pillaging the wealth of billions; a world where people are not hiding from and adapting to a violent hierarchical hegemony of vicious manipulative thugs; where there are no secret police and mafias and intelligence services and government sponsored cartels; a world where people relate with one another individually with respect and with full expectation of quality...

I'm an imaginative guy, but I cannot get that far. Can you?

 

Oh so you weren't saying the state makes a happy childhood impossible. You were saying that the state makes it impossible, once beyond childhood, to have the analogous adult experience to what a happy child experiences?

The interesting thing is that everything you lament not being able to experience due to the state - I have heard almost this exact same lamentation from anarcho-primitivists who make a case that it is not just the state but civilization itself that brought about this situation. They would say that civilization itself is the root of institutionalized violence, massive hierarchy, and so on. But that's a whole other discussion.

[STer]

 

Even for those who opt not to try to change other people's minds, it's still very helpful to understand how one's position compares with that of the people around them.

As a means to undersatnding the mechanics of the wider world and the thoughts and motivations of those around you, yes it is helpful. But of course, as I'm sure you realise, that is a whole diifferent pursuit to that of attempting to change a persons mind.

 

Of course. And I think a lot of people on FDR care about changing people's minds. But I was simply pointing out that the thread still has some value even for those who do not.

 

I doubt you'd deny that the general sentiment at FDR is that
government is oppressive and stifles our freedoms to an unacceptable
degree. For me, it's just interesting when I hear the framing of it as a liberty/freedom issue because I just don't think that's how most people in the West, in their day-to-day lives, experience it.

No I wouldn't disagree with that as a general sentiment. And within the wider world of the 'freedom movement', they do tend to focus most of their attention on govt like you're suggesting, which does become frustratingly dull (at least for me). I think a whole lot less of that occurs here at FDR (in my experience). The focus on personal relationships and well being are a big part of what gets discussed here. Perhaps less so on the boards, but then again I wouldn't say the boards are necessarily a great reflection of the community as a whole. Personal freedom being a much more achievable goal because it only involves the individual making changes and not the rest of the world.

That being said, I agree that many people in the west are oblique to the idea of not being free. Most have been convinced by years of indoctrination in schools and a media that just reads out govt missives verbatim with little critcism. Then there is the other side in which people are often dependent on govt for their jobs, food, health and shelter or at least aware of a loved one that is. Perhaps that's an over simplification of why many people are reticent to the 'liberty message', but it covers the majority I think. I thought you raised an excellent point earlier in the thread, in response to MrCapitalism, regarding the neglected and abandoned. I would wholeheartedly agree with you that these people are important. That merely feeling aggressed upon or violated is just one (albeit valid) outcome of abuse. Stefan has addressed this in some of his earlier podcasts if I recall. Of course peaceful parenting goes some way into avoiding being neglectful of your childs needs. However, I would agree that there is still much to learn, as these are often the hardest people to reach, because the journey to recovery for them is usually a longer and more painful one. However, I am still mindful that there are always going to be people that are uninterested (unreachable). In my opinion learning how to detect those kinds can be just as useful as finding ways to reach others.

 

I basically agree with most of what you said here. The only thing I'd add is that the obliqueness to the idea of not being free comes, at least in some part, from the fact that people in the West really are significantly free in many respects that they care about. It's not just an illusion. We really do have a lot of freedom in certain areas. And that's why I think the freedom message is a tough sell to those who aren't philosophers thinking deeply about the more subtle, insidious dynamics that might go on in a system. 

[STer]

 

I think this topic is pretty important because if you're trying to convince people to work and make sacrifices to bring about more freedom and liberty, there would have to be clear things people really want to do but can't currently to motivate them to put in such effort.

Okay, I overlooked this part when responding to your thread. I don't think that this is the case, because we see in more obviously-oppressed countries/economies that the people still advocate for government action and expansion in certain areas. I don't think my personal complaints about government, no matter how intense, will actually convince nonlibertarians that government is the reason they feel prevented from doing the things they want to do in life. That's a philosophical conclusion that the person in question has to arrive at themselves.

I think the most we can do is provide the principles and arguments in as civil a manner as possible, and let the other person take those arguments how they will. I've actually convinced several people that they like anarchist principles, they just don't see the practicality of them. But I figure that's a step in the right direction. For a while I also thought anarchist principles were mostly idealistic, even though I really appreciated them as well. Then I began searching for practicality. 

Let me ask this: Did you arrive at anarchism because you felt prevented from doing certain things or having certain freedoms? I'm not entirely sure that that's why I arrived at anarchism. If anything, it was a more objective view that government wasn't handling problems in society very effectively. I think the very first thing that got me on my philosophical path to libertarianism was how much hatred and disdain I noticed that people in other countries held about this country. It wasn't so much that I felt personally violated or restricted, although in time that factored in as well. It's possible that that was a strong underlying reason for questioning government, I just didn't realize it at the time.

 

Sure some people, even in very oppressed countries, will still support the government. That doesn't mean that rising awareness of the oppression doesn't drive more resistance though. Just that it isn't enough to drive 100% resistance (nothing is).

You mention that it actually wasn't the "freedom" issue that brought you to libertarianism and anarchism. And that's fine. In this thread I was just focusing on the "freedom" argument and why I don't think it speaks to most people in our society. Perhaps other arguments will speak to them more.

I actually would not say I'm an anarchist exactly. I'm kind of an agnostic who sees merit on multiple sides of these arguments. In the end, I'm not sure there is just one answer to this for everyone. There might be various different solutions that work in different places. That's another whole discussion. But my views on it pretty much stem from what I wrote in one of my blog posts (I can post the link if people want).

 

This points out part of why I started this thread. I have a feeling the things that frustrate a lot of people on this board are not things that are very powerful in moving people in the general public to get really active and resistant. When people feel really oppressed in more basic ways like what you can say, what you can wear and so on, as in some really repressive societies, I think they're more likely to become fed up. But if the lack of freedom here amounts to things like this, I can't see it being strong enough to really motivate people to resist or even perceive much of a lack of freedom.

So shouldn't you be asking, "What caused you to become fed up with government and pursue liberty?" ? 

 

No because I was specifically curious about this gap between how some in the lib/an community feel so oppressed by the government while most people I know don't feel that at all. They feel more oppressed by their boss at work than by the government.

 

So a lot of yours are economic too like others. And besides those, you just wonder what we might be able to do that we aren't even aware is possible. Again, not that motivating to the average person if you compare it to the types of things that really get people feeling oppressed to the point of wanting to change society.

I think this thread is showing why most people, though they feel some annoyances at taxes and red tape, don't really perceive a "lack of freedom" as a major problem in the West. They don't wake up feeling all the things they really want to do but can't because of the government.

I think the real reason that people don't recognize a lack of freedoms in this country is that they're taught from an early age that government is necessary. Media and public schools and other institutions push this manipulative hypnosis on children. Pledge loyalty to a piece of fabric, recite the declaration of independence, support the troops, read Lord of the Flies, go to school and learn nothing particularly useful there, learn obedience to authority figures, etc. etc...

 

That might contribute. But I still think it's more that the government really doesn't take away that much day-to-day freedom that people long for. Even with taxes, they still keep most of their money, just not all. They can travel where they want pretty much unfettered. They can wear what they want, say what they want, with very few limits (other than limits imposed by people other than the government).

 

My point is that if the parents choose not to homeschool, and you believe that public schools corrupt childhood, then you could say it's the parents preventing the kid's childhood, not the state. Yes the state obviously puts forth influence there. But the ultimate decision to put the child through it is the parents'.

But how much of a choice do some parents have, when they need to work 9-5 to earn enough money to support their children? Other options also cost more. This is not to excuse the parents for never questioning why they feel they have to subject their children to public schooling, but I can at least understand that some parents are limited by options. The state has a tendency to limit options.

It also helps to remember that I only recently became an anarchist. So, for about 20 years of my life, I didn't really question the school system, or government. I went through the same thought processes as a statist. It takes a lot of constantly reassessing personal values and beliefs to arrive at anarchism. This self-questioning and transformation process is not comfortable for a lot of people. Again, not excusing them, but I can see why blind contentedness so wide-spread. 

 

Why would people perceive the state as oppressive because their job keeps them from homeschooling? They would perceive that as their job being oppressive. This is part of my point. The limits most people feel don't come from the government. They come from their jobs or their own families and so on.

As you seem very aware, this thread isn't questioning anarchism as a whole. It's just considering this "government is keeping me from being free" perception. There are lots of other arguments for anarchism than just feeling personally oppressed on a day to day basis by the government. Those can be looked at elsewhere and may be more effective arguments. But I've just always been curious about this "I feel unfree" one, specifically.

[DaisyAnarchist]

Fine points, I'm just having a hard time finding clarity with the way you word some of your responses. If I think I understand you, you're saying that in the perspective of the average American civilian, threats to personal freedom come from employers, business owners, bankers, and so on. That it could be government that hinders personal freedom doesn't occur to them. Is this what you're saying? If so, I agree with it. I just have a problem with this:

Why would people perceive the state as oppressive because their job keeps them from homeschooling? They would perceive that as their job being oppressive. This is part of my point. The limits most people feel don't come from the government. They come from their jobs or their own families and so on.

I don't think most parents take the time to consider other options. It seems like a mechanical process that they go through, because it's what everyone else in society has done before them. So in the specific case of schooling vs alternatives, I don't know that parents would blame their jobs. More importantly though, how sure are you of that (in bold)? 

Employers and family members can certainly limit the personal freedoms of those around them. But I think anarchists see the matter as being deeper than that. Why do employers and family members act in such a way? Perhaps there is a cycle of abuse going on? Perhaps, if they had the personal and economic freedoms that government currently witholds, they wouldn't feel the need to constrict the freedom of others? Perhaps the cycle of abuse is rooted in the complex history of statist principles? Also consider that employers and family cannot limit personal freedoms at the barrel of a gun; the state can and does. It's a much more powerful and tangible threat to freedom, for me. Transgenerational.

[STer]

I don't think most people even think in terms of "threats to personal freedom." It's more just a sense of who is "keeping me down." And I think most people who feel that feel it's "the man" keeping them down which refers to authority figures in their daily life, like parents or other family members, bosses and so on. I don't think most people feel that the US Congress is keeping them down. And that's just the people who do feel "kept down." A lot of people feel pretty free to do as they please as long as they are at work 9-5 and keep their boss happy. They may be frustrated with feeling they don't have enough money. But I don't think they feel unfree.I agree that many people never even consider homeschooling. Someone in that situation is going along unquestioningly and so they would have no reason to feel that public schools are any source of oppression. Only the ones who question the system would be thinking that. And those people who do that and want to homeschool but can't due to personal economic reasons are unlikely to feel that's an example of the government keeping them from being free.>The limits most people feel don't come from the government.>>>More importantly though, how sure are you of that (in bold)?I didn't say I'm sure. But this is my sense. I started the thread to get some more feedback. And ultimately it would be interesting to see some actual research on this. But I don't know many people that feel a lack of freedom is a big problem in their daily lives. I hear these howls from libertarians and anarchists about a need for greater freedom. Yet there is this huge gap between that and the perception I pick up on from people I know which does not involve feeling any great lack of freedom. Their concerns are other things apart from, sometimes even the very opposite of, lack of freedom, at least on a day to day basis.I agree that many anarchists see the deeper roots of things. But we are not talking about anarchists here. We're talking about the general public and why I don't think they are moved much by the argument from libertarians/anarchists that we are so unfree and need some freedom agenda.

[MrCapitalism]

How can people feel oppressed by the government when they truely believe "we are the government?" It's like telling somebody that they are oppresssing themself. I'm not suprised that these feelings are projected onto random sources, which brings a lot of desperation, confusion, and ambivilance when considering the subject.

If a person is being being repeatedly hit with a baseball bat, and refuses to acknowledge that fact, they're not going to be eager to talk about the 'invisible' sources of their bruises...they may blame a skin condition, or clumsiness, or sleep walking, or whatever..

It's like in the call in shows when people start by saying, "well I've always been X" and Stef has to correct them with "no you're not! you were X because of Y"

[STer]

 

How can people feel oppressed by the government when they truely believe "we are the government?" It's like telling somebody that they are oppresssing themself. I'm not suprised that these feelings are projected onto random sources, which brings a lot of desperation, confusion, and ambivilance when considering the subject.

If a person is being being repeatedly hit with a baseball bat, and refuses to acknowledge that fact, they're not going to be eager to talk about the 'invisible' sources of their bruises...they may blame a skin condition, or clumsiness, or sleep walking, or whatever..

It's like in the call in shows when people start by saying, "well I've always been X" and Stef has to correct them with "no you're not! you were X because of Y"

 

But what I'm arguing is that most people don't feel unfree at all in the ways libertarians and anarchists focus on, not that they feel it but attribute it elsewhere. The only really widespread feeling of lack of freedom that I hear about very often is people complaining about having to go to their job (which is kind of like a cliche thing they shrug off as just how life is) or not having enough money to do what they want to do. But all of the basic freedoms - freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom to worship as they please and on and on - people generally feel they have. And the truth is they do have them in the West for the most part.

So it's a valid point that if people believe the government represents them and is of them they wouldn't necessarily blame it as easily if they felt unfree. But my argument is that most people in the West do not feel unfree in the most basic ways.

[MrCapitalism]

Libertarians and anarchists focus a great deal on economic freedoms, how can you say that people feel unfree because of economic issues, but then say their complaints are not related to the complaints of libertarians and anarchists?

[STer]

 

Libertarians and anarchists focus a great deal on economic freedoms, how can you say that people feel unfree because of economic issues, but then say their complaints are not related to the complaints of libertarians and anarchists?

 

I don't think people perceive these economics complaints as cases of being "unfree." They just perceive them as not being able to afford certain things currently. They look at people who make more money and have those things and that shows that clearly people are not being forced to be unable to do these things. There is no law saying they can't buy a certain car that they really want (if there was I bet that would really upset them in a whole other way if it was one with any popularity at all - and note that I'm talking here about cars many people would actually really want) The opportunity is there and it is allowed. They just don't personally have the money right now, but aspire to have it someday. So I don't think most people think of that as a freedom issue in the way they think of censorship or shutting down minority places of worship or things like that as freedom issues.

Here is another way to put it:

There are government policies and laws that directly stifle personal freedoms. We don't have a lot of those in the West relative to most people's desires.

Then there are government policies that, because of their effects, may put someone in a position where they don't have enough money to afford something they might want or force them to work longer than they otherwise would to get it. You could call this an economic freedom issue if you choose. But people viscerally feel this in a different way than a direct stifling of a personal freedom where a policeman is taking them to jail for political speech or something like that.

I'm not saying the case can't be made that these economic complaints ultimately tie into a freedom issue in a sense. But my point is that it's more indirect and not felt viscerally in the same way so it doesn't really resonate when people talk about it in the language of "freedom."

[PatrickC]

I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that people generally don't see govt in quite the same way as the anarchist and libertarian do. However, the state has poured enormous amounts of resources into propaganda over the years, Juxtaposed with the freedom to choose our lifestyles and hold onto at least 50% of our wealth. The state has engineered a magnificently sophisticated form of slavery that allows the average westerner to suspend their belief.

I was curious though and had this thought experiment. Do you think the slaves in the cotton fields were aware of their slavery? It has always been portrayed as though they did. But I wonder. I'm certain that particular slaves had elevated status, due to their skillset etc. This would have caused them to reconsider freedom, which may have diminished that status for them. Just a thought.

[MrCapitalism]

exactly, they can't see the bars of their cage.

[MrCapitalism]

There is no law saying they can't buy a certain car that they really want

Sure there are, there are tens of thousands of them...

http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/06/18/another-car-we-cant-buy/

 

Buying cars at a dealership is a soul sucking process with arm-and-let maintenance and agressive salesmen. People look at this process as natural inevitable... NPR recently did a story about how the entire process of selling and making a car is written into law by the government.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/19/172402376/why-buying-a-car-never-changes

[nathanm]

 

I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that people generally don't see govt in quite the same way as the anarchist and libertarian do. However, the state has poured enormous amounts of resources into propaganda over the years, Juxtaposed with the freedom to choose our lifestyles and hold onto at least 50% of our wealth. The state has engineered a magnificently sophisticated form of slavery that allows the average westerner to suspend their belief

Yep, that's the whole trick. Also, the government will teach you about government in school, but only to show how fair and balanced theirs is in comparison to worse ones in history.  The Nazi\Hitler plugin for example, comes pre-installed in our operating system. So when current government is enacting some shitty policy all we do is compare that to a nazi concentration camp and conclude, "Hey no big deal".  I'd bet that even the people in protests getting tear gassed and beaten by riot police are likely not thinking "Fuck ALL of this shit, Statism is immoral!", but rather "Fuck these guys, we need to get these crooks out and vote in some GOOD political leaders!"  The Man IS keeping us down, but if we can't correctly identify who the Man is, then we'll be fighting all the wrong fights.  Government is basically a cheater in the game of life.  People get more riled up about pro athletes using steroids than they do about fundamental and wide-reaching cheating by governments.  So baseball players and cyclists must be tarred and feathered whilst thieves and murderers are elevated as demigods.

[PatrickC]

The Nazi\Hitler plugin for example, comes pre-installed in our operating system.

What a fascinating thought Nathan, I'd never considered that before. But it makes complete sense.

I think STer's point is not that people are not unfree, but that they are free enough to experience a lot of what the world offers with little hindrance (or so it feels for them). Certainly they will look everywhere else before they equate govt with any hinderance they experience. Of course he can correct me if I mistook his reasoning.

 

[nathanm]

 

I do agree that there's plenty to be glad about in our world, and one might even feel like a negative nancy trying to make people feel oppressed when they really don't.  But of course that's just because the fascists have learned from history and improved their methods.  Perhaps there will always be the feeling that The Man is holding you down from time to time, I just want that to be blamed on myself and\or circumstance and not because the game is rigged by a violent gang.  I'll experience a fair amount of envy and frustration when I see other people doing what I do with greater success, but I can live with that as long as I know they haven't cheated.

[STer]

 

I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that people generally don't see govt in quite the same way as the anarchist and libertarian do. However, the state has poured enormous amounts of resources into propaganda over the years, Juxtaposed with the freedom to choose our lifestyles and hold onto at least 50% of our wealth. The state has engineered a magnificently sophisticated form of slavery that allows the average westerner to suspend their belief.

I was curious though and had this thought experiment. Do you think the slaves in the cotton fields were aware of their slavery? It has always been portrayed as though they did. But I wonder. I'm certain that particular slaves had elevated status, due to their skillset etc. This would have caused them to reconsider freedom, which may have diminished that status for them. Just a thought.

 

I think you're still missing my point. It is not quite the same as slavery since, as you yourself said, people have "the freedom to choose our lifestyles and hold onto at least 50% of our wealth." You can say there is authority involved, hierarchy involved and so on. But you can't honestly call it the same as slavery with those conditions in place. And, as I keep pointing out, this isn't just an illusion. People really do have a large range of everyday freedoms. Do you think slaves are allowed to get a permit to go in a public square with a bullhorn and speak against their masters? No. But people can do that in the West all the time. You can say it's ineffective and doesn't change much if you wish. But they are allowed to do it and so they feel free (and in this way they are indeed free.) It's just not going to resonate with most people comparing their situation in terms of the government to slavery when they feel so accurately free to say and do and move about mostly as they please.

Where you will hear the slavery comparison resonate more is when it comes to employment. People will speak of "wage slavery" and they feel this kind of thing viscerally since at work they actually cannot dress and speak and move as they choose. Their employer can control them in ways the government does not.