RE: 'Defending a Free Society?'

[barn]

Hi @Add984

(In short: I think the human mind is fully primed, we know enough to transition into a full-fledged free society in some parts of the world...the rest is going to fall in line, can be shown a good example for their likely, future joining. It's just, no one society is "intelligent"/"got the balls" to pay the otherwise very high price of initial investment for a gargantuan and lasting return/strong inoculation against misery in general. All this multiple century long postponing is taking an ever increasing toll, raising the price if not bust, the first to leap will definitely have to pay. It's what we currently have to work with. Nothing good or bad about it. It's just, it is.)

Now, can I be "cheeky" and ask you to answer a few, really simple (yeah, right) questions in regards to your poll/post?

'How will a free society come about?'

0.   Is De facto always preferable (objectively) to De jure if free-will is preferable on the long run?

1.   Why hasn't it? (soooo much groundwork has been done, been available for soooo long, wh.. how it hasn't... ?)

2.   For how long would it last if we had achieved it yesterday? Why? What would it take?

3.   What's the difference in the underlying principles between the fall of ANY statist society and the breakdown of ANY family unit?

4.   Can we use things like "how many people from those losing weight do keep it off forever", to gauge the level of a society's preparedness in regards to deferral of gratification, intelligence put to productive use, keeping to principles?

5. If we replaced our society's main focus/our current guiding principle (whatever it might be) with the unapologetic and dedicated striving for the wellbeing of our children, looking at maximising their present (ought to) and future prosperity... How'd that affect our society's approach to freedom in general?

Thanks,

Barnsley

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by barn
p.s. got answered

[Add984]

Hi Barnsley, I will give it a go.

 

On 0. Since ‘free-will’ is intrinsically preferable in societal governance (i.e. no collective of individuals relate to each other outside of this preference, hence our justice systems, praise for accomplishments, etc.), I believe de facto is ‘preferable’.

 

Just to add something. To my mind, I do not think of these principles as something to be adopted, as such, but more something that we have when we burn away the unnecessary statist elements. By ‘these principles’ I refer to sovereignty (i.e. individual self-ownership), which is self-evident and a universally accepted norm in societal relations; property rights and the non-aggression principle (or NAP).

 

On 1. It has not come about because there has not been a widespread philosophical awakening on the true nature of individualism. We live in an era of group think in which the individual is buried under a sea of labels. I believe this mentality is shifting, but the transition to me think (or the recognition of individual sovereignty) is slow-going and in its early stages.

 

Statism is the apotheosis of this group think mentality or rather the nucleus around which the concept orbits. It is extremely difficult to get individuals not to simply identify with their superficial traits (e.g. race, gender, political persuasion) and thus they can never see past these to the true obstacle to the equality and prosperity most people want. The state violates the sovereignty that every individual displays.

 

On 3. I must apologise, as I do not believe I completely understand what is being asked. Statism always fails simply because it is contrary to the observable fact of sovereignty. This is the root of its failure as statism can only exist when the sovereignty of some is violated to the benefit of others.

 

As the state grows, the host society is drained of wealth and support, with a growing preference for ‘larger governments’ that provide ‘positive rights’ of welfare. As more individuals are sucked into this mentality, we see the classic tragedy of the commons played out in which the host society can no longer square the increased ‘take’ with the lesser ‘giving’ or more productive elements.

 

In relation to the breakdown of the ‘family unit’ (in the western context) the state is certainly the cause, given its aforementioned growth. With the increased welfare cultures and the marrying of the modern woman to the state, where they can afford to make poor choices in men and even reproduce with such men, the state effectively promotes the breakdown of family units. The two issues are certainly intricately linked.

 

On 4. and 5. I tend to not think of these issues in the same frame of context. A transition to a free society is an incremental, organic process of spreading knowledge in order to shift the general perspective away from top-down solutions. Consistency in our thinking is key and recognising the consistent principles of property rights and the NAP, based on the observable self-evident fact of individual sovereignty, is all it would take to speed the process up.

 

This is easier said than done, of course. People like Stefan Molyneux are still (sadly) on the fringes of general public awareness. Sovereignty covers all individuals (including children), which is the basis of why it is wrong to ‘spank’. A recognition of sovereignty in the wider culture will see a shift in child-rearing towards a more non-coercive mentality.

 

I apologise in advance if I have not answered your questions to your satisfaction. My vote goes to non-coercive means of change, simply because history shows us that revolutionary / militaristic methods do not shift us one iota closer to a free society, but simply transitions the society to another state. The group think perspective must be changed if the cycle is to be changed indefinitely.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

[Jsbrads]

The only free societies in this world was created thru revolution.

Countless pacifistic attempts have failed time and time again.

Much like socialism, you can try one more time, but I prefer Sic Semper Tyranus!

[barn]

Hi @Jsbrads

Not to agree or disagree on what you said, or to add too much value as a matter of fact ...

16 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

The only free societies in this world was created thru revolution.

Countless pacifistic attempts have failed time and time again.

Much like socialism, you can try one more time, but I prefer Sic Semper Tyranus!

But instead be reciprocal for the Latin phrase I understood today.

Fun fact, it has been the motto (not to be confused with 'slogan') of Virginia state and...

(from 'Wackopedia')

"[...] Trump became the first Republican candidate since Calvin Coolidge in 1924 to win the White House without carrying Virginia. [...]"

I thought that was pretty Hillaryous... I mean, hilarious!