gwho Posted November 15, 2013 Posted November 15, 2013 The idea of "country" is also what keeps freedom fighters fighting, rather than just moving and emigrating. Why fight militarily against governments when you can just move to another country? Sure there are costs, like having to learn another language, etc, but is it really worth dying or fighting? (For me personally, it's just not worth it. Just take your family and leave. You can't sway the outcome much, and there is huge personal risk. The potential prize is what, a better government for one country? If it was to rid of all governments, maybe I might think about it.)Why do freedom fighters fight? I'm sure a large part of their bag of reasons is nationalism, combined with ethnic pride. Having some moral and emotional stake in the geography inhabited by their own ethnicity that contains the traditions, culture, and maybe even physical monuments significant to history. The way I see it, they stand their ground and fight mainly because of the same lingering loyalty to their "country."So yes, the governments are bad, and they propagandize, cause wars, predate on their tax farms, etc. That's a given. I want to make a point beyond that, and shine my little light on the motivation of freedom fighters. If they didn't fight, then there would be no war (granted, it would be so much easier for governments, etc, but lets put that issue aside).As far as the motivation of rebel freedom fighters, the lingering idea and belief in "their country" is probably the biggest reason they stand and fight.
Livemike Posted November 22, 2013 Posted November 22, 2013 It might also be that they think what is being done is not permissable. Sure if I invaded your house and started smashing things, using your stuff and beating up anyone who I wanted you could just leave and find a new house. But why should you have to? Why not give the oppressors what they deserve?
gwho Posted December 11, 2013 Author Posted December 11, 2013 makes sense.also for revenge, if there were casualties.language barriers, and beliefs of country, ethnic nobility, etc would also keep people staying.I suppose the more rational people are, the more mobile they will be as well, since they won't have as many reasons for being attached to a geography.More trade, more international commerce, will reduce language barriers, while also increasing travel capacity and affordability.
Existing Alternatives Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 It might also be that they think what is being done is not permissable. Sure if I invaded your house and started smashing things, using your stuff and beating up anyone who I wanted you could just leave and find a new house. But why should you have to? Why not give the oppressors what they deserve? There is also a matter of one crazy dude breaking in vs. a gang of well-trained, heavily armed goons taking over. At that point, would you still resist with nothing but bare hands or quietly pack up and move on? Another point to consider while freedom-fighters are fighting they are not working, ie produce anything that they can consume, so somebody will have to subsidy their very existence. In movies (like Red Dawn and Red Dawn Again) it is usually the local populous that is supportive to the cause. In real life the populous is usually starved by that point if not moved away as well. So, usually some third force comes in with money and supplies (such as Soviet Union and Mandela). The problem is - that third force has some completely different agenda than the original freedom fighters. So, my vote is to assess the probabilities of success (one crazy dude vs. a gang) and consider moving.
Mike Fleming Posted December 12, 2013 Posted December 12, 2013 Well, if the ultimate idea was to just to re-establish the old government I would probably be a little reluctant to be a "freedom fighter" or support them. Depends how bad the invaders are. The new guys might come in, take away all benefits and promises and regulations of the previous government, just demand maybe 10-20% from people (which still adds up to a lot when you are not re-distributing, but significantly less than the current government) and let us go about our business. In that case I say "viva invaders! Thank you for liberating us from our oppressive government and it's insane taxes and laws" Then after awhile we realise we don't even need these guys and then anarchy.
cab21 Posted December 13, 2013 Posted December 13, 2013 what about freedom fighters who don't "fight for country"? what about individuals that "fight for the individuals property rights"? why would a individual give up ownership and move?
Livemike Posted December 15, 2013 Posted December 15, 2013 There is also a matter of one crazy dude breaking in vs. a gang of well-trained, heavily armed goons taking over. At that point, would you still resist with nothing but bare hands or quietly pack up and move on? Another point to consider while freedom-fighters are fighting they are not working, ie produce anything that they can consume, so somebody will have to subsidy their very existence. In movies (like Red Dawn and Red Dawn Again) it is usually the local populous that is supportive to the cause. In real life the populous is usually starved by that point if not moved away as well. So, usually some third force comes in with money and supplies (such as Soviet Union and Mandela). The problem is - that third force has some completely different agenda than the original freedom fighters. So, my vote is to assess the probabilities of success (one crazy dude vs. a gang) and consider moving. If your culture tells you that your job is to protect the family against invaders even if it means your death, it doesn't make a difference. One armed robber, 100,000 it's all the same, your honor demands you defend. I'm not saying this idea is right, merely that it was prevalent in many parts of the world and still is in some.
Existing Alternatives Posted December 16, 2013 Posted December 16, 2013 If your culture tells you that your job is to protect the family against invaders even if it means your death, it doesn't make a difference. One armed robber, 100,000 it's all the same, your honor demands you defend. I'm not saying this idea is right, merely that it was prevalent in many parts of the world and still is in some. Moving from the area where your family is at risk probably better way to protect that very family than simply dying. Further, being commanded to die to protect other (familial or not) is pretty heavy argument against culture in general.
Recommended Posts