TED Conversations

Kuldeep negi

This conversation is closed.

Is Freedom a Lollipop Handed over by High Authority or rich people to play with in limited means that serve their purpose?

Kings, Monarchs, Autocratic Leaders, Company Owners, Rich people, Political Leaders, and Influencers are the one who use freedom as a tool to keep people in their control and in reversal we the people get happy by the limited freedom that we got such as to choose our clothes, food, and fancy items, some time to speak openly in social media; but when we go deep like Julian assange, Snowden, martin luther, etc fight for our rights we are pushed down or removed from the system. I want to know is freedom used as a lollipop or not?

Topics: freedom humanity
Share:
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2013: Yes its is a lollipop my opinion is that freedom is a new religion.( do you believe ? )
    Is freedom being used much like religions it keeps people submissive but gives them hope.
    • thumb
      Oct 10 2013: and you don't believe in freedom?
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2013: Yes and No we may have the freedom to make certain choices but there is consequence for choices. if I don't pay my taxes I end up in court. or the solo mum who does not go to work for the day may not be able the feed her children.
        As humans we are living organisms we need nourishment ,shelter and sleep to survive. This we are a slave to.
        Because most of humanity is not a hunter gather society our necessity of life may be in other peoples hands
        • thumb
          Oct 10 2013: i don't understand the answer. freedom never meant lack of consequences. it is a different concept. in fact, freedom is only meaningful in a world with consequences. if there are no consequences at all, choices do not matter, thus freedom is useless.
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: I do believe in restrictions to benefit others as well, even though this can be very difficult at times as of its high potential of being misused.

          When I rose this question, I was thinking about parents who happen to have a disabled child, which may never be able to be independent on its own. Taking on those responsibilities cuts away many degrees of personal freedom, as the concept of responsibility does just that.

          I absolutely agree with you, that as further down the social ladder we go, as more restrictions in personal freedom we find. Those restrictions are based on the concept of real or artificial scarcity, which haven't been solved yet.
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2013: And you don't believe in restrictions in freedom due to responsibilities towards others?
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: Yes I do believe in restriction to benefit others as long as there is a flow on effect with who is benefiting. It just seems to me there are more restrictions the further down the social ladder you climb.
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: no i don't. i only believe in restrictions to freedom due to not violating the property of another person (property includes his own body).
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: This question was more on the rhetorical side, as my first comment didn't pass the TED Conversations Team.

        Do I understand you right, that in consequence you would not care for people close to you if this care would require to reduce your personal freedom, temporarily or ad infinitum? Or would you care for them, as otherwise this would violate their physical or mental health of their bodies?

        Do you consider mental health of a person as his property as well?
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: And what about cause and effect on violating the property of another person?

        Does this include pollution of our natural environment, which endangers health and therefore the property of our bodies?
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: How do you demonstrate harm in an environment, in which money can buy expert opinions, top lawyers and time?

        Who comes to decide and based on what data?
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: you convince the judges. libertarian judicial system is a complex topic. but the same question can be asked in any system. how do you protect the environment in today's system with all judges, controllers and lawmakers bribeable?
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: Corruption works best in minority based decision processes, as any small number of people is easier to bribe than large numbers. This is one reason why I prefer a majority vote over any other as any attempted bribery runs public very quickly and therefore loses its influence and momentum.

        The same goes for the decision making processes within judiciary and politics, in which any representative system faces the same problem of 'small numbers' and is additionally based on even viewer political parties 'in charge' and opposition. Yet there are ways to bypass those limitations and to involve society directly in decisions concerning the very interest in their property of 'health and their environment'. They just need to get installed.

        On health and environmental issues I follow the concept of the 'exclusion principle', which means, that no substance is allowed to be introduced unless its harmlessness is proven. Criteria have to be defined and agreed upon by the majority of independent scientists, which excludes corporate scientists from voting, due to the given conflict of interest. Yet they are part of the discussion and research based on the scientific methodology.

        The current processes and given standards are surprisingly weak, as deeper one digs into it.

        Some years ago I was involved in the creation of new metal-combinations and alloys for the cooking ware industry regarding conductive heating, for which a certificate was needed to enter the market. Yet as deeper I got into this topic, as more it became clear that many of those standards have not been based on basic research, but best practice and therefore just educated guessing.

        And as both, the environment and the human body are highly complex systems, so got to be our effort to make sure not to put it at any risk.
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: democracy is a centralized decision making system. in any workable, practical setting, we vote for officials, officials make decisions. that is why many call for direct democracy, but a practical model still haven't been proposed.

          on the contrary, libertarian society is decentralized. there is no central decision making. every decision is made by the group of people directly affected.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: Short question regarding your freedom of choice / consequences theory :

        Was the freedom of choice guaranteed if my only choices given were to be:

        a) burned to death
        b) tortured to death

        Both of them imply different consequences, yet do not introduce the choice to choose neither of them.

        Would you consider it necessary for the freedom of the freedom of choice to also have less lethal consequences, or does this became irrelevant due to the presence of two choices already and their given consequences?
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: i don't understand what you don't understand. if i have freedom to choose from exactly two options then i have freedom to choose from exactly two options. nothing more can be inferred from that situation.

          libertarian theory calls for increasing freedom to its theoretical maximum. what is that maximum depends on the actual situation.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: 'That is why many call for direct democracy, but a practical model still haven't been proposed.'

        By this saying, how do you explain the existence of Switzerland, in which direct democracy is already put into practice? Have they just skipped the missing proposition of a 'practical model'?

        How does libertarian society tackles situations in which 'the group of people directly affected' is smaller than the group of people which isn't.

        Lets say a big dam was to be build for the production of green energy, yet the group of people directly affected to leaver their homes is smaller than the other group, which needs this energy. Is the larger group obliged to compensate the smaller group, or is this the problem of the smaller group alone?
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: Representative structures are no contradiction to direct democracy, on the contrary, as it is necessary to provide a functional framework for it to happen.

        To you, a majority of canton voting in Switzerland is unable to outvote their representative parliament, or even to restart the process of decision making?

        And what is Switzerland to you if it is not in that 'mostly' state in your understanding?
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: I don't understand what you mean by that, could you please explain?
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: "representative structures are needed for direct democracy." direct democracy is by definition does not have representative structures. if there are representative structures, it is representative democracy. it should not be that hard.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: I understand, so to which of the many definitions are you referring to? Yours?

        The framework of course needs representatives, as no organization can function without any form of internal logistics. Is this difficult to understand in itself, or are you just pretending not to? I can explain it in more detail if necessary.

        Switzerland integrates its people 3 to 4 times a year directly in the active process of decision making and this on a regular basis. By this 'public voting' becomes an integrative and unavoidable, whereas
        in only representative democracies we observe very high hurdles in public voting or even conscious and willingly suppressions. For instance, the German people haven't been asked if they agree to change their currency from Deutschmark to Euro. I ask you, decisions of that magnitude shouldn't be withhold from the people within a democracy, right? We might expect this for totalitarian regimes, yet in democracy? Not me, for my part.

        So the moment public voting becomes an integrative part of the process, and not a vague option, the level of 'directness' increased in this for of democracy. Switzerland, no country, is a fixed definition. Yet any country can improve on its system to insure for more equality, fairness and to reduce corruption.

        Let me know if the concept of direct democracy remains unclear to you still.
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: that is the doublethink. if you have representative structure, it is representative democracy. but if you take direct democracy, but you understand that you need some organizational structure, so you add representatives, then suddenly, having absolutely the same construct, you call it direct democracy.

          i'm very sorry for using the words in a cleaner way. for me, representative democracy is with representatives, and direct democracy is without. representative democracy is centralized (not perfectly, to some degree). direct democracy is a dream world.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: regarding freedom of choice

        So do I understand you right, that you expect the one who is given a set of possible decisions by someone else is not allowed to question those decisions in itself?

        In my given scenario my understanding of free choice was exactly to do just that. To decide not to decide on any given option. Is this something other to you than free choice?

        Is the 'theoretical maximum' of the libertarian theory Anarchy or different from that?
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: it is formal logic. he either can choose something or not. you can not say i have the freedom to choose something i can't choose. it makes no sense. a man can either challenge the bondage he is put in or not. whether it is moral, is a different question. i still don't understand where we are going with it.

          there are two large class of libertarian thinking. minarchism and anarchism. i consider anarchism the only clean and true libertarian theory, minarchism being a half-libertarian one. i follow the rothbardian tradition.

          btw i highly appreciate that you restrained yourself from condescending and sideways questions this time.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: So you decide by your definition about direct democracy right? Well, fair enough, you are free to define the world as a plane, yet it doesn't change anything.

        When a secretary prepares all papers for a manager, a CEO maybe, so that he is able to make his decisions, without doing all the mailing, filing and sorting of information himself, he then is a 'dream figure', because of his secretary?

        If you have difficulties with the term 'representatives', maybe 'state servants' helps you out? A framework in which all the mailing, filing and sorting is done, so that the public who gets to decide don't have to deal with all that. 'Legwork' we may call it.

        Any decision structure I know of works this way, or do you really belief that your politicians do all the work by themselves? This was what I would call a good dream ... :o)
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: if you noticed, the definition does not matter. what matters is working kind of democracy is centralized, not centralized kind of democracy is not working. that is the point. calling the central decision makers "servants" won't make any difference.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: It may well be, that your appreciation is based on choosing not to read in between the lines.

        My given question was clear, the scenario easy to understand. Why you keep going for formal logic instead of applying it in the given context, stays beyond my imagination. Do you avoid clear conversation on purpose, or is this a language problem?

        So I ask you again:

        Was the freedom of choice guaranteed if my only choices given were to be:

        a) burned to death
        b) tortured to death

        Both of them imply different consequences, yet do not introduce the choice to choose neither of them.

        For how many degree of freedom in choice does your formal logic allows, when applied specifically to this scenario?

        It might be a bit unfair to ask, as I already named another solution, yet what would be your solution?

        And concerning libertarian thinking, do you only follow tradition, or do you think for yourself as well? Do you incorporate other 'theories' where it would make sense and to what degree is your view on reality altered by this traditions, if that could be realized and answered at all?

        I notice high levels of reluctance against anything what ever deviates from your tradition, which is often seen in believe systems, such as religions or sects.

        Is there any criticism from your side while you walk the path other minds formed for themselves before you?

        This would explain why even simple questions get lost instead of finding its way to get directly answered.

        There are so many ideas out there to build and improve upon, that my only explanation you refuse to use this beautiful source as well as your own imagination was indeed your freedom of choice.

        But maybe you answer my question this time.
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: i'm not aware of anything like "the freedom of choice". what does that mean? i already said: if you have two options, you have two options. i don't see what else could be said about it. you can ask it again and again, but i don't see how to answer otherwise.

          i follow that tradition consciously, not blindly. i found not a lot of things i would disagree out of the many rothbardian teachings. and there are a few issues which i didn't decide if i agree or not yet. needs more thinking.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: 'Calling the central decision makers "servants" won't make any difference.'

        There are no central decision makers in a direct democracy, that is what you don't understand.
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: No further questions...lol
      • thumb
        Oct 11 2013: What is condescending to you? That I have no further questions or that I laughed out loud? Or both?

        I have no further questions because I am getting no answers. The 'lol' is the expression of my lack of understanding after a series of failing attempts.

        If this was condescending to you, I hereby apologize.
    • thumb
      Oct 10 2013: very well said Gareth Dawson I agree with you, but for the readers Explain it Elaborately.. please
      • thumb
        Oct 10 2013: My view point of the similarity's between religion and freedom stems from I see religion as a technology designed by the leaders of that time of the religion to try and submit the masses if you don't do what my god says he will smite you (consequences) or you may be poor and starving but when you died you will go to a better place (hope) .
        It seem to be all most instinctive like the child in the playground being push around by the bully might say (my dad a police man and he will arrest you). it may be a lie but the bully may think there is going to be serous consequences.
        Can freedom be use as a tool like this?
        Do we really need to spend trillions of dollar to fight a war on terrorism to stay free ( a war against fear ) it cant be won
        We live with hoping that we live free just like the religious person hoping of an afterlife
        • thumb
          Oct 11 2013: Could you imagine a process, in which the amount of hope gets reduced over time and exchanged by the same amount of real freedom?
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2013: It is said, that if you throw a frog into boiling water, it will hop out again immediately. But if you gently heat the water instead, very slowly but steadily, the frog will finally be cooked without having fled.

    Actually, I don't know if this is true or not for frogs, but it may serve as another analogy to your lollipop.

    The problem of any ruling class is to rule over educated people, as those have this highly annoying tendency to question the rules, or even worse, to question the authority of the rulers in the first place. And for rulers, this is a very serious issue and of course they developed counter measures against it.

    As a rule of thumb one could say, that, as more educated the people, the more sophisticated those counter measures got to be to remain unnoticed AND effective.

    Freedom, better, 'the illusion of freedom' is the highest form of mastery any ruling class can ever archive, but they can, they even have to do better than that, because every now and then some individuals get to see even behind those illusions and dare to speak loud out about it:

    'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.'
    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    Nowadays, the stealth mechanisms of those 'weapons of mass delusion' are backed by the creation and use of the term 'conspiracy theory', which works pretty effectively against critics, as it ridicules their arguments by sorting them into a framework among UFO and Armageddon enthusiasts and such alike. And who wants to listen to those people, right? :o)

    Well, I don't know if Goethe has ever been hijacked by aliens, as hes has not left any written records on this, but I am highly convinced, that he was no 'conspiracy theorists', so what made him write that quote?
    I think, he simply observed. Simply but also very sharply and his finding was valid in his days as it still is in ours.

    In Mahatma Gandhi's terms, conspiracy theories would range in his ' ... then they laugh at you ...' phase.
    • thumb
      Sep 28 2013: Thank you Lejan for your Comment and level of understanding I appreciate it. I would like to know in simple words is our society made of similar interest or out of fear.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2013: As 'fear' is one of our strongest emotions, no society could be formed without its influence. Fear itself is of 'similar interest' within any group of people.
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2013: I expected this answer, one need to think out of the box and conquer fear if we have to change something, fear make first oneself and then society coward. There is a Quote by Bo Bennett
          While we are focusing on fear, worry or hate, it is not possible for us to be experiencing happiness, enthusiasm or love. That is why one day the society will be formed with similar interest. I am optimistic.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2013: I am optimistic as well Kuldeep, and what we focus on expands......where attention goes...energy flows:>)

        I suggest that understanding fear may be more beneficial than "conquering" fear? Or is it one and the same in your perception?

        EDIT:
        Regarding comment below:
        Well thank you Kuldeep....I think I will.....continue to "do it":>)
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2013: Thank you for your response, I would say, Either way if it makes you confident in your focus and action do it.
      • thumb
        Oct 4 2013: I don't share the view of Bo Bennett, as it doesn't reflect much if any insight and is purely generalized.

        Anything we focus our attention on will therefore limit alternative experiences and keeps our senses occupied and at times deceived. Happiness, enthusiasm or love itself can get us off track as well and hinder us to focus on more relevant matters at a given point in time. All of these feelings are volatile by their nature, at times even highly volatile, and focusing to much in pursuing them, is distractive as well.

        Especially in this modern times this 'distraction' is easily observable, as 'happiness' and the hope for 'love' got connected to the possession of things and thereby alienated us from its original meaning.

        Fear is connected to pain, physical and emotional, and therefore plays an important role for us to interact with our environment. Cowardliness, whatsoever, is a perception as well as a form of external judgment and should therefore be used very carefully.

        Unlike pain, at least to most people, fear is controllable to certain extends and accessible by reason and experience and by this open to be of good use to us or to be misused by others.

        The instinct of fear causing angst is useless and can even paralyze us to save our-selfs out of dangerous situations. But when fear creates caution and when we learn not to be overwhelmed by it, it does help our survival. Therefore, its in the control of fear we should train ourself in and to be aware about others who wants to gain control over us by gaining control over our fears. And it takes our caution to prevent this to happen. Caution, not angst!

        I am a bit less optimistic about our current society, as the similarity in our interests is already determined by being of the same species ever since...
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2013: To be immune to, and unaffected by the coercive, covert efforts of others to dominate and control one's self is freedom. Perhaps your question should be: "Are those who are involuntarily controlled by the influence of High Authority or rich people really free?" My point is that a person can willingly put themself under the control of law, social dictates, religious rules, traditions, etc. and still be free. Freedom is lost when control of one's own life is unknowingly external to one's self. To be free does not mean doing anything one wants. Orderly social conduct necessitates rules. A working economy demands policies and procedures. A free society requires laws. Anarchy is not freedom. Freedom is not a lollipop. it is a right which must be constantly protected by vigilance and willingness to act in its defense. Assange is no hero, nor is Snowden.
    • thumb
      Sep 28 2013: Thank you for your response edward, I understand your Point view. This is what exactly I am talking about you cannot convince everyone but that doesn't mean, I have to follow you. You are happy with your own think alike people or group and similarly I am happy with my own set of people who have similar interest and hobbies and yes freedom means actually to do what you want to do Now you will say is killing fine or thrashing someone is ok my answer would be no this your extreme thinking. you need to understand anger, repulsion, fight, etc are the outburst of emotions no one like to do it and our present environment is actually making more and more victim of it, a environment of happiness and allowing people to do where their interest lies from childhood days will make them a better person. We need to understand competition, pressure, forcing is killing the inner self of human being making them more vulnerable.
  • thumb
    Oct 25 2013: Freedom is completely relative, and is not precisely definable. You may have more or less of it, and more is only good under certain circumstances. The modern popular emphasis on Freedom as an unquestioned good is thoughtless and shows a lack of understanding of the needs of a society.
  • thumb
    Oct 18 2013: I am Really thankfull to all of you people who have share their views.
  • Oct 11 2013: According to the law of nature "To every action there is a reaction". There are three doms one is Freedom,second is ChaoDom and the third is FoolishDom. Freedom has an inbuilt mechanism to restrict the freedom itself.

    Example 1:

    You the slap the other person and exercise your Freedom that is your action .Now when in reaction the other person exercises his own freedom and slaps you in return then you don't have the right cry that you freedom has been restricted and only you have the right to slap the other person.

    Example 2:

    You are sitting in train which is running at high speed.You have the full freedom to do whatever you like inside the running train.You can even exercise your freedom to jump out of the running train no body will interfere with your freedom. But, when you jump from the running train then your freedom gets transformed into foolishdom. You took an action and due to reaction of your jump Nature exercised its own freedom and you get either injured or go to see the god in the heaven. And then you say why can't I have the freedom to jump out of the train safely ??

    If Julian Assange ,Snowden and others are exercising their own freedom then their opponents are exercising their own freedom.

    Its a struggle between Freedom Vs Freedom.
    • thumb
      Oct 11 2013: Santok saggu very good you have just invented 4th law of Motion......
  • thumb
    Oct 10 2013: Yes I see your point. what I was trying to point out is that to survive we require the essentials. food water etc
    but the choices we make or have to take to obtain these may have consequences that are set for us by some higher authority
  • W T 100+

    • 0
    Sep 29 2013: Yes

    And it looks very attractive (sweet) when you look around the world and see the alternatives.

    The latest example.....

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/29/us-nigeria-violence-idUSBRE98S06120130929
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2013: Thank you Mary for your opinion, I believe Where we are standing today is because of what we have reap in the past 2012 years and more, we have became so obsessed for power, money and materialistic things.
      But this same Earth has seen people like Great Mother teresa, Mahatma gandhi, Baba Amte etc who carried out their work genuinely and selflessly; I wish People in and around who can understand it may follow it.
      • W T 100+

        • 0
        Sep 29 2013: I do think Kuldeep, that many humans are unaware that human government's are there in 'relative' positions.

        Many times they are perceived as 'absolute'.

        There are many many individuals on our planet today who use their freedom in the best sense of the word, regardless of what human government they live under, knowing full well they have to answer to a higher source.

        Great conversation question, I have enjoyed reading all the wonderful opinions and insights.
        • thumb
          Sep 30 2013: Thank you Mary for the appreciation. My purpose is served.
  • thumb
    Sep 29 2013: Thank you for your Comment Allan, please elaborate your view on this "100 people voted for Presidential candidate " there were 2 candidate one i.e. A who stand for Growth, upliftment, change etc win by 51% and B who stand for transparency, Corruption free government, stability etc gets only 49%, as per the law "A" becomes the president and rules over all 100 people, My question is why A is given authority to rule over all the 100 people why not, only on 51 people who agreed with his policies; isn't it injustice done to the 49 people as they have no interest on A candidate, but since he is the president for next 5 years they have to suffer for it what kind of freedom is it? if you think the Command power should be only one, I think it is right. But the commander should command on the similar interest group who have supported him and so in this case "A" should be the president of 51 people and "B" should be the president of 49 people; this will be more fair and just-full for the society.

    Share your view, please.
  • thumb
    Sep 29 2013: It depends whether you are conditioned to accept other peoples lollipops, or if you are more happy with lollipops of your own design and flavour.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2013: Thank you for your Comment Allan, please elaborate your view on this "100 people voted for Presidential candidate " there were 2 candidate one i.e. A who stand for Growth, upliftment, change etc win by 51% and B who stand for transparency, Corruption free government, stability etc gets only 49%, as per the law "A" becomes the president and rules over all 100 people, My question is why A is given authority to rule over all the 100 people why not, only on 51 people who agreed with his policies; isn't it injustice done to the 49 people as they have no interest on A candidate, but since he is the president for next 5 years they have to suffer for it what kind of freedom is it? if you think the Command power should be only one, I think it is right. But the commander should command on the similar interest group who have supported him and so in this case "A" should be the president of 51 people and "B" should be the president of 49 people; this will be more fair and just-full for the society.

      Share your view, please.
      • thumb
        Sep 29 2013: Kuldeep, Voting for candidate A would by definition, leave the B voters disaffected and powerless in the face of a narrow majority in opposition to what they stand for.

        Proportional representation, which I think you are proposing in your last sentence (?), sounds fair and just on paper, but in practice might lead to parliamentary squabbling and mud-slinging - a recipe for deeper divisions between A and B as they defensively dig further into their beliefs and ideologies.

        Human nature disallows electorate satisfaction with both A and B over time as separate entities. Even less so if they are in coalition, because B will have to become subsumed into majority A's ideology over time to try and put a halt to the wasted energy involved in the deepening of divisions. Collapsing down into a single party line would be one of the few ways to stay electable in the future.

        Proportional representation a bit like a political version of the second law of thermodynamics: The amount of usable ideology in a closed political system will decrease over time...

        As I see it, the only way politics will work is to de-centralise and to become more locally accountable. It's the only way democracy could have any chance of working, and where the lollipops would be more likely to be of a local flavour, and more likely to be enjoyed by locals.
        • thumb
          Sep 29 2013: Thank you for your opinion Allan.
  • thumb
    Sep 29 2013: I would say that we in the USA have foregone the lollipop ... it has been bought to our attention repeatedly that we are in the mist of the least transparent administration ever ... drones being used on US citizens ... NSA spying on US citizens ... Executive Orders being used to by pass Congress and make laws .... implementing UN Article 21 without the citizens knowledge by Hillary Clinton ... Homeland Security buying up guns, ammo, and armored weapons vehicles ... and the list goes on. The Communist party set 41 hings that must occur to overthrow the USA they have, with the help of the Administration, accomplished 39. I read a article about the school system being broken and to my surprise it was not about learning it was the failure of the party to indoctrinate the student into the party line of thought.

    We now have the illusion of freedom and sit on the very edge of recession and depression while printing 85 million dollars a month to help the economy while all the time we have a 16 trillion dollar debit which is greater than the GDP. All of this makes no difference and the big government wants to spend more ... the voice of sanity that says you cannot keep spending more than you make is being blamed as obstructionists and a enemy to progress.

    I think you can cross off rich people ... the Marxist ideology is that those are Capitalists and their money and property belong to the state. Free media, education, access to unsupervised learning (libraries), and educated people all pose a threat to socialist / communist regimes and are taken over immediately.

    I am not a big fan of Assange or Snowden but in the case of a non-transparent rule they are a necessary evil. However, there are also many dangers that accompany their actions.

    To a lessor or greater degree every government asserts controls to serve their purposes.

    Good Luck. Bob.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2013: Thank you for your honest Opinion Robert I appreciate it. Even I am not fan of Snowden or Assange but it gives a real example that if someone try to disclose, how system work and misuse the power and trust that is put on the system by the Citizen. In one way or the other system Some time penalize a group of people or Mostly make individual Victims and Individual is helpless because he/she can't do much about it. I see hope in the society formed out of interest irrespective of any caste/colour/religion/age/gender/ etc and I am raising my voice for it as a global citizen.
  • Sep 29 2013: During the Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers were published in part by the New York Times and the Washington Post. The person who leaked these papers also gave it to the Nixon Administration, Senators of both parties before giving it to the press. The Washington Post and the New York times were sued to not publish the papers and the reporters were threatened with prosecution. Daniel Ellsberg was put on trial. The case was thrown out of court by the Judge. They stayed to fight for what they believed in and freedom.

    During Vietnam, there were 2 types of heroes/patriots -those that fought in Nam and those who stayed and protested against the War and the draft and went to prison. Those who ran to Canada and hid were not heroes/patriots.

    I have to admit that I have become slightly cynical about elections in the US, not sure about other parts of the World. It seemed the party that spent the most money won. It seems the electorate became cynical of the ads, especially on television. Maybe there is hope.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2013: Thanks for your Response Wayne, Every time it is seen that before the election the leaders talk about their good will for the society and if they are elected, they will do this and that, more or less same agenda is for every election all over the world. But we still have poverty, unemployment, security issues etc I mean these issues happen because the will is not pure in an average life of 40 we have so many stress and pressure due to this, some make it and some not; but each life is precious, we cannot leave them because we want growth rate of 10. All of us don't want all the luxuries we want a peaceful society, a peaceful and easy going place, why to hurry what is that we are going to achieve Money! But it will be left back when we die, Power! what will you do with power when you can't stop yourself getting aged. What is the purpose then of Money and Power! OK may be rich people want their family members to enjoy the wealth that is left behind, even for that to maintain they will have to work in a growth rate of 10 as value of money depreciate, so at last No one is with real bliss and happiness left behind.
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2013: So how does the ruling class shape these lollipops for educated people, especially if those people somehow managed to struggle themselves all the way up to democracy?

    Well, democracy is difficult, yet not impossible to penetrate and so a whole candy-shop got developed to deal with this problem.

    The strategy is pretty similar to modern warfare, but instead of bombing identified targets, they get corrupted and morally eroded. And main 'points of interest' here, or targets, are the education system and independent mainstream media.

    The education system helps to implant a dominating 'world view', and if one can't think of alternatives anymore, it is likely there won't be any experiments to try them out.

    And as soon the 'Independence' of mainstream media is stripped away, the implanted 'world view' can easily be maintained and strengthened.

    And to make all of this a bit more entertaining and glittery, just open the candy-shop for the 'weapons of mass distraction' of which our TV programs are bursting by its sheer variety. Just make sure the waters are shallow, and only a view will learn how to swim in the ocean.

    For all of this it is important, that the water isn't boiling for the frog not to jump out. So it takes time to heat the water...

    But as we all know, time is money, and money is what they have, time hasn't been a problem...

    Have I just made up a conspiracy theory here? Well, I wish it was just theory ...
    • thumb
      Sep 28 2013: Give the people what they want but very slowly, if they ask for "right to reject" don't do it tomorrow, since we all know, it is public's right wait!! let the bureaucracy handle it and by the mean time influence the voters change their perception about the candidate.

      You know earlier King's could be dethroned only by another king who was more powerful, rich and efficient in war tactics. But today in this economic world there are 3% of world population who are ruling on 97% of world population in various way and they formed a system a cycle which will continually give them a upper hand. In this type of a system Change takes a lot of time and many generation passes away e.g. we all know Cigarette smoking is injurious to health, when there was time in the initial stage why it was not banned and now after several years and killing so many lives still the companies are operating know they have adjusted to E-cigarette what kind of bull***** is this. On one hand Govt is saying that it kills and other hand these companies are earning profit in thousand Crores that means that much sale. So the Conclusion is Govt is not benefiting people interest but they are benefiting Rich people Interest this has formed like a game in which Politicians, Rich people and big corporate houses are winning but ultimately people are suffering. I wish there to be a system of dethroning such Profit oriented system which make only limited people rich and happy while other to suffer. I know people have freedom to choose exactly these companies are making beneficial use of it and so very limited Market players in this segment as these companies are very big they remove or take over their competitor thus same 3% ruling on 97% in this sense freedom has become a lollipop.
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2013: i have no idea how a king uses freedom to keep people in control. i was under the impression that they use soldiers for that.
    • thumb
      Sep 28 2013: Thank you for your response Krisztian, We all know that king is a king because he has power and money both; which will increase only if he conquer more and more land or kingdoms, a king without Subjects or follower will not be the case any time. Now I will give you an example of how freedom is use; "A king called as Julius caesar understood the political advantage of a famous show like Gladiator Combat, which was actually used by him to influence voters, and only citizens who had promised to vote for the politician paying for the show were allowed to attend the show. supporters of a rival politician were not allowed to enter". This is a Classic example. Understand the concept behind it for little freedom of enjoyment and entertainment etc Kings try to control people and their decision. It is like by Hook or Crook i.e. by fulfilling Small wishes or by Fear they try to control public. but no one is allowed to challenge the Authority or system as no one is considered as free Citizen who can live along with similar interest of other group of people without under anyone's control for which Spartacus Died.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2013: this scenario, namely that we have a king, we have a famous show created from state money, and the king singlehandedly deciding who can attend and who can't, so this scenario does not strike me as "freedom". it is called "privilege". i agree that privilege is a good tool in the hand of a tyrant. that is why even the most centralized monarchies had some pyramid like structure. the king alone can't keep his throne. he needs to share some. but this privilege is the exact opposite of freedom.
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2013: Let me give you another example to clear my concept about King using freedom to control people, In war what happens to the people of other kingdom who get conquered? Many of them are turned into slaves for what purpose?There are several other ways in which slaves are acquired. A criminal may be sentenced to slavery. An unpayable debt can bring the end of liberty. It is them who will do all the activities of building palaces, and regular other occupations. These same people who are ruled are given the hope of freedom after serving for particular years as punishment they will be free. Now just imagine with the fear of slavery which is actually exactly opposite of freedom, who will oppose and whatever activity people are doing is as per the guidelines of king. Let me also tell you something, that ultimately Money and Power which is both first distributed among ministers and Subject for their work is circulated back to King in the name of various taxes and penalty which are mandatory to follow.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2013: i think it is the same example again. compared to full freedom, the tyrant "gives" some freedom to a selected few. but it is still less than they had before. this is "privilege". it is possible that the tyrant robs certain people, and gives to others, it is not freedom given. it is "loot" given.
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2013: Krisztian, Privilege and Freedom are Synonyms and not opposite as you have mentioned earlier. you have said "compared to full freedom, the tyrant "gives" some freedom to a selected few" this sentence it self says that freedom is controlled. then you said "but it is still less than they had before. this is "privilege". Of course ministers and rich people like traders on those time were having more privilege than regular people and regular people were having more privilege than Slaves (Dear just replace the word privilege by freedom) you will get the Answer; than you said "it is possible that the tyrant robs certain people, and gives to others, it is not freedom given. it is "loot" given." Exactly it is Loot but I never Said this, I said in my second last line Please read it carefully that how money is circulated back to king. I hope I have now answered all your Queries sentence by sentence, thank you for your participation.
      • thumb
        Sep 29 2013: but your question started as "is freedom a ...". and not "is freedom sometimes used ...". and my answer is no. freedom is something the ruler takes, and not gives. without the ruler, we have freedom. unlike in the real "give" situation, in which if the giver is not present, the giving does not happen.
        • thumb
          Sep 29 2013: Krisztian i am getting your Point, You are saying "freedom is something the ruler takes, and not gives" and then you says "without the ruler, we have freedom" and then give a situation where in you says "unlike in the real "give" situation, in which if the giver is not present, the giving does not happen." there are three aspects of your thinking which itself gives the answer if you connect the dots properly. Please go through my explanation and reply to all the comments posted in the debates, in which I have made myself very clear.
        • thumb
          Sep 29 2013: Krisztian, Since I have communicated a lot with you, I would like to know your point of view on this
          "100 people voted for Presidential candidate " there were 2 candidate one i.e. A who stand for Growth, upliftment, change etc win by 51% and B who stand for transparency, Corruption free government, stability etc gets only 49%, as per the law "A" becomes the president and rules over all 100 people, My question is why A is given authority to rule over all the 100 people why not, only on 51 people who agreed with his policies; isn't it injustice done to the 49 people as they have no interest on A candidate, but since he is the president for next 5 years they have to suffer for it what kind of freedom is it? if you think the Command power should be only one, I think it is right. But the commander should command on the similar interest group who have supported him and so in this case "A" should be the president of 51 people and "B" should be the president of 49 people; this will be more fair and just-full for the society.
      • thumb
        Sep 29 2013: i agree to that analysis. democracy is a form of ruling. therefore democracy is contradictory to freedom.
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2013: the free will we have can break the lollipop freedom
    • thumb
      Sep 28 2013: Absolutely Riadh you are right, I am not thinking of freedom for my self but for the coming generations also. See If a group of people are convinced and can understand the need for it, the first step is to put forward our views, but what after that. How can Like minded people across the world come together and declare OK we are free citizen of this earth and our interest level is this, and this is what gives us happiness so we will not follow your rules and regulation. We will form our own Society in which everyone is free to enter and exit as per their interest and choice. This what my free will says but can it be done practically without protest or Marching "NO".
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2013: Hello Kuldeep,
    All ruling elites survive by a mixed use of the carrot and the stick, as you point out.

    However, given the historical and geographical evidence, ruling elites are here to stay, and even more so in the current trend towards plutocracies the world over. This brings me to the issue of freedom, which you mention several times.

    What does it mean to be free in an ultimately repressive regime (no matter how benign it currently seems)? Or to be free in any more localised situation? Is not freedom an inner state of mind? Ruling elites will be whatever they will be, but I would rather spend my main energy on developing inner peace and freedom. If I choose on occasion to 'march for freedom', so be it; I will be free anyway.
    • thumb
      Sep 28 2013: Yes Joshua you are right, a person has to be free internally in order to stay at peace, but this is something we all know still people are not happy internally, people are suffering from stress, depression, Suicidal, anger, hatred, ignorance and Cowardliness etc are few examples of it. Peace and bliss is a state of mind and it get nurture only in right environment that is no dominance, no pressure etc for this we have to develop a society no matter how big or small they live by their own choices and it is flexible enough to shift from one society to another as per interest. e.g A 20 year old boy is interested in badminton to play in morning so he Joins a group that loves badminton in his society after playing Badminton he relaxes and went home he is interested in social activity he joins a social group that plant saplings. he is also having interest in preparing food so he joins Catering Group and study as well as work there; I am talking of such flexibility where a person is not hold on the basis of cast,religion,Percentage in exam, age etc Such free society will only Nurture bliss and the productivity will go up In that sense freedom is a real freedom, and those who are convinced by me should think of efforts they can put for this type of society.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2013: "Pressure" to conform, or restrict our possibilities can come in many ways. In many countries the restricting pressure is much more direct than in the U.K. However, as someone born in the 1950s who (I believe) has had the best opportunity in all of history to do whatever they want, there was/is huge pressure to achieve at a hight level and prove you "have it all" - the perfect partner, high-earning career, house + holiday-house, educated children, fitness with a lean muscular body, etc - all these more subtle pressures can also lead to frustration and disappointment if you don't achieve them, especially when one has had the best opportunities ever. I think that's maybe why I concentrate on the inner, rather than the outer.
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2013: Yes Joshua Somewhat you are right But pressure of performance, pressure of competition, pressure of achieving this all is because you are unsatisfied from within, therefore it is very much important the lesson we have learnt in 21st century is; no matter how much money you have, no matter how much Power you have, No matter how much material things you collect there are some section in society who still couldn't find Peace and bliss within them because they know whatever is happening in and around them is not right, the next generation will definitely ask question and blame earlier generation for not developing a peaceful society where life is nurture, one cannot be selfish that since today I am happy with myself it does not guarantee that all your life you are going to be happy, one day you will ask question to your self what you have done to make this place better for next generation.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2013: It is an interesting question you pose, to ask "what you have done to make this place better for next generation".
        Both my parents fought in WW2 to keep England free from Fascism - so their contribution to the next generation is easy to quantify. Being myself of the first generation never to have to fight a war, I see my responsibility mainly to fight the inner war, and resolve inner conflicts which in the end, as a collective, will lead to another outburst of violence if we do not resolve them.
        I'm reminded here of the quote from G.K.Chesterton in response to a newspaper asking readers to write in to answer the question "What's wrong with the world?". He replied "Dear Sir, I am. Yours, G.K Chesterton"

        Of course, it is not a question of either/or, but rather a question of both/and. We want to develop our own sense of inner peace as well as "do something" to make the world a better place. In this respect some people are better at 'doing' than others. But if our mindset is still at the same level as the mind-set that caused the problem we are now trying to solve and make the world a better place, then we are not really doing anything to help - yet.

        Today I did the grape-harvest with the help of some friends, and their children. Tonight I take them all out for a meal as a thank-you. The children experience reciprocal friendships at work, which is one important way of making the world a better place, I guess.
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2013: Joshua, Thank you for your Contribution of thoughts. One day we will be there "a better World".
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2013: It is a collusion between government and the cronies. The main freedom comes with economic freedom.
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2013: Thank you for your response Pat, I agree with you. Our fore father started this tradition of choosing one representative who will act as per the peoples interest, But this action has came as a spat right on us and the group of representative tells us what to do and what not to do, while they themself enjoy great percentage of freedom,facility etc and restrict the freedom of those who has chosen them.
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2013: From what I hear India has a great deal of this as we do here in the U.S.

        The real enemy is ignorance on this subject
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2013: Yes Pat I agree with you, People try to ignore problem and get back to their daily Work which for them is more important. People are also right they can't on daily basis do protest or raise their voice as they put this responsibility on the chosen one who actually take the supporters on ride and hence they suffer.
  • Sep 26 2013: Too much freedom can actually bring down an autocratic government because it makes revolutions easier to orchestrate, so I'd say no in that case. Of course, too harsh a treatment will also encourage revolt, its its something of a compromise between the two.

    In a more democratic one on the other hand, excess freedom has the opposite effect of increasing stability. Why revolt when you can just wait for the next election? Therefore, removing civil liberties will make a democratic regime less stable, and be bad for everyone involved, oligarch or otherwise.

    One way or the other, I recommend you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. There are places in the world where this "lollypop" isn't taken for granted.
    Whether it's there to placate you or otherwise, is it not nice to have regardless?
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2013: Thank you for your response Nadav.

      First of all in Autocratic government there is very less freedom and every thing depends upon the rulers choice. Secondly the point of discussion I am trying to debate here is, we the people were not born so that somebody can rule over us. let me put it with an example in a class of students where each and every individual is free to demonstrate, Perform, vocal and follow their interest where then suddenly school decides the class should have a representative (This is very Important), Class chooses one person as their representative without knowing the after effects of their action. one day the Representative tells the class that we will be only having Drawing as a subject of learning and nothing else apart from it this is instructed by the school to him and the school has told the class representative to convince some how at least half a class so that we have the majority for drawing class. Know in order to be the class representative as his school fees is exempted and he gets another facility too he is forced to bring majority which he does using his Charismatic personality. know the situation changes. The class which was totally free of doing what they want to have to compromise, this compromise affect their results and performance but they can't do anything because the election will be at next year; in between the school organizes various functions and seminar and when new batch starts there are more new people who don't know the functioning of school and the process is repeated.
      My question is Why there is no system where we don't have to convince anyone and if a group of people want to do something different because of their interest why can't they do it?
      Every individual is born free So if some people or Group of people want to live differently rather than sacrificing their interest they should go ahead. there should be flexibility if they want to switch and join another group also.
      This is related to various Fundamental
      • Sep 28 2013: Humanity is not born to be ruled, and most humans rebel against being ruled, at least to an extent, true enough.
        Just because its not natural doesn't mean it doesn't happen though. Its not necessarily a bad thing either. Without hierarchical systems, we couldn't have civilization and all that comes with it.

        Without at least some manner of subservience, we have the state of nature, a rather cut throat affair that most animals and plants still go by today. Its a short, hard and brutal existence. Its also what complete and utter freedom looks like. No one is telling you what to do, but your life is pretty much garbage otherwise, unless you like never knowing where you next meal is coming from, or sleeping with one eye open.

        Subservience and loss of freedom, at least an extent, are the millstones of all civilized life.
        Of course, complete and utter loss of freedom turns almost everyone's lives utterly horrific for different reasons.
        Its a matter of finding a way to balance the two.

        You'll always have ruling classes and the ruled ones, exploiters and exploited, and rich and poor. That's just the way of the world, been like that since the dawn of time.
        The thing to remember is that any situation that doesn't entail them is going to be even worse. Shortening the gap between the two groups is of crucial importance to prevent the freedom to go too far into the other direction (namely its lack), but eliminating them outright is not a good idea. Just look at where it got the communism block.

        My suggesting is to take your freedom where you can get it, and don't look the gift horse in the mouth.
        • thumb
          Sep 29 2013: Thank you for your opinion Nadav. I see freedom in "Society formed out of similar interest" this will change the Paradigm.